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

---

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Looks like a record low afl crowd in Hobart today,I'm surprised it's pulled less than the North vs GWS game earlier in the season.

 

[Perry Pie]

Lets assume Tassie gets a team in 2026.
The question is how does that work.
19 teams detracts from comp due 1 bye every week, ok for a season or 2, but not good over long-term as there are no more games to sell. 19 teams is out commercially, same pie split more ways.

So either someone folds to make space, or someone moves Tassie, 2 teams merge to make space or we go to 20 teams.

No one is going fold so lets rule that out (there will always be a better alternative than simply folding)
Then we have a team moving to Tassie (e.g. the Sth Melbourne model). That would be as expensive as a new team I suspect, little up side & probably will not be seen so well in Tassie to as there will always be the suspicion that if the team struggles there they might move again. Would take a lot of commitment to sell it to the moving club too, which is unlikely unless the only alternative was extinction. The blackmail would have to be an AFL demand to move or fold... so possible but see no upside for the competition or financially. Only will happen if financially desperate (which AFL is not)
Merging 2 Melbourne teams has never happened, dont see it happening to make space for a Tassie team either. (more downsides than moving a team)

So we are at 20 teams (WA3 or Canberra/Queenbeyan)... 1 more game a week. Probably extend finals, maybe a different season structure? The compromises to make 20 work seem less long term than all the others. That is the decision that AFL will have to make.

Feels right to have Tassie in - if a viable 20th team can be put in too.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Lets assume Tassie gets a team in 2026.
The question is how does that work.
19 teams detracts from comp due 1 bye every week, ok for a season or 2, but not good over long-term as there are no more games to sell. 19 teams is out commercially, same pie split more ways.

So either someone folds to make space, or someone moves Tassie, 2 teams merge to make space or we go to 20 teams.

No one is going fold so lets rule that out (there will always be a better alternative than simply folding)
Then we have a team moving to Tassie (e.g. the Sth Melbourne model). That would be as expensive as a new team I suspect, little up side & probably will not be seen so well in Tassie to as there will always be the suspicion that if the team struggles there they might move again. Would take a lot of commitment to sell it to the moving club too, which is unlikely unless the only alternative was extinction. The blackmail would have to be an AFL demand to move or fold... so possible but see no upside for the competition or financially. Only will happen if financially desperate (which AFL is not)
Merging 2 Melbourne teams has never happened, dont see it happening to make space for a Tassie team either. (more downsides than moving a team)

So we are at 20 teams (WA3 or Canberra/Queenbeyan)... 1 more game a week. Probably extend finals, maybe a different season structure? The compromises to make 20 work seem less long term than all the others. That is the decision that AFL will have to make.

Feels right to have Tassie in - if a viable 20th team can be put in too.

Who do you think the 20th team would be?

 

[Gigantor]

One option I heard discussed was giving Tassie a license for 5 years or so, and if it doesn't work, you simply take the license back, and stay at 18 teams.
I agree that 19 teams is an awkward number, but not because of the bye, the bye is neither here or there.
You can work out models that spread the games out over 23 weeks, such that every team gets two byes for the season and you play a game every Thursday night, and that's definitely worth money.
There are 28 weeks of the footy season to fill, and the AFL wants to fill them, by hook or by crook, so forget about shortening the length of the season.
The main thing wrong with the number 19 is that it is one more than 18 - and that's already a lot of teams.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

C

One option I heard discussed was giving Tassie a license for 5 years or so, and if it doesn't work, you simply take the license back, and stay at 18 teams.
I agree that 19 teams is an awkward number, but not because of the bye, the bye is neither here or there.
You can work out models that spread the games out over 23 weeks, such that every team gets two byes for the season and you play a game every Thursday night, and that's definitely worth money.
There are 28 weeks of the footy season to fill, and the AFL wants to fill them, by hook or by crook, so forget about shortening the length of the season.
The main thing wrong with the number 19 is that it is one more than 18 - and that's already a lot of teams.

Collin Carter discussed doing this for ten years,then we can see if a team In Tasmania will work or not and I'm very confident it would work.

 

[Kwality]

C
Collin Carter discussed doing this for ten years,then we can see if a team In Tasmania will work or not and I'm very confident it would work.

Define 'work or not'.
Would the same test apply to ALL clubs in that time frame ? If not, why not?

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Define 'work or not'.
Would the same test apply to ALL clubs in that time frame ? If not, why not?

I'm just saying we need to find out if it is viable,I think the other teams are in the AFL and the AFL wants them but that is not the case for Tasmania.

 

[Kwality]

I'm just saying we need to find out if it is viable,I think the other teams are in the AFL and the AFL wants them but that is not the case for Tasmania.

Then you need to understand what constitutes a fail.

 

[sherb]

While i dont believe that to be true, the game is played in every state and territory of the country as befits a national code. The Australian Football League is played in Australia.

The code is national, no doubt.

But I don't see how you can consider the AFL competition to be national without, at minimum, all six states having competing sides.

It's certainly a national competition in terms of mainland Australia though.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

C
Collin Carter discussed doing this for ten years,then we can see if a team In Tasmania will work or not and I'm very confident it would work.

I think it needs to be all in or not you can’t expect governments to upgrade stadiums and put up millions with nothing more then a ten years at all if they were using a 10 year theory the Gold Coast suns would be handing there license back in as we speak

 

[madmug]

I think it needs to be all in or not you can’t expect governments to upgrade stadiums and put up millions with nothing more then a ten years at all if they were using a 10 year theory the Gold Coast suns would be handing there license back in as we speak

The Government wouldn't countenance spending $millions on stadium & training facilities plus player & staff relocations etc, all on a moveable licence.

In reality the AFL wouldn't be so silly as to expect or even ask for that either.

Again, the optics on such a situation would be terrible for the AFL & the team

 

[Percel]

But foxfooty.com.au understands the warring parties have broken bread and the possibility of a 19th licence in the state will be put to all 18 club presidents early next year.

The league’s commitment to play two elimination finals in Launceston this weekend acted as an olive branch in negotiations.

In the absence of crowds in Melbourne, GWS and Sydney will do battle on Saturday, while the Western Bulldogs and Essendon will face-off on Sunday.

 

[NoobPie]

The Government wouldn't countenance spending $millions on stadium & training facilities plus player & staff relocations etc, all on a moveable licence.

In reality the AFL wouldn't be so silly as to expect or even ask for that either.

Again, the optics on such a situation would be terrible for the AFL & the team

That's all true but it goes to

1) the silliness of doing the same for the NBL or the A League - both of which would effectively not be able to guarantee anything in the longer term
2) the need for a very long term commitment for the government as well

 

[NoobPie]

The code is national, no doubt.

But I don't see how you can consider the AFL competition to be national without, at minimum, all six states having competing sides.

It's certainly a national competition in terms of mainland Australia though.

If Australia wasn't a federation but rather a unitary state with regional provinces would this still be the case? Or if Tasmania wasn't a state but was part of Victoria?

 

[BringBackTorps]

Mercury B. Stubbs

"AFL 2021: Major breakthrough in Tasmanian franchise plans
After years of trying, Tasmania has never been closer to securing an AFL franchise for the Apple Isle following a huge breakthrough on Tuesday.

Brett Stubbs
August 24, 2021 - 9:54AM
News Corp Australia Sports Newsroom

The AFL and the Tasmanian Government have reached an agreement on a timeline for a decision on the state’s entry to be the big league.
After a stalemate following the release of the Carter report, AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and Tasmania Premier Peter Gutwein have agreed the much awaited decision will be early next year.

The commitment from the AFL will allow the government to resume talks with Hawthorn and North Melbourne on renewing their contracts with the state to play games next season.
The AFL commission needs to agree to expansion and then get the support of 12 of the 18 clubs for Tasmania to enter the competition, which the government hopes will be in about six years time".






Foxsports 24.8

"Exclusive: AFL Tasmania call expansion ceasefire in landmark peace deal
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has broken a landmark piece deal with Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein.

Tom Morris from Fox Sports@tommorris32
August 24th, 2021 10:13 am

The AFL and the Tasmanian government have brokered a landmark peace deal that will be confirmed as early as Tuesday morning.

Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein said he was “annoyed” when Colin Carter’s report did not categorically advocate for a 19th license in the state and threatened to dismiss Hawthorn and North Melbourne’s presence in the state for the 2022 season.
“If that means that AFL content is not in Tasmania next year, then be it on the AFL‘s head,” Mr Gutwein said on August 13".

 

[HPKS]

Mercury B. Stubbs

"AFL 2021: Major breakthrough in Tasmanian franchise plans
After years of trying, Tasmania has never been closer to securing an AFL franchise for the Apple Isle following a huge breakthrough on Tuesday.

Brett Stubbs
August 24, 2021 - 9:54AM
News Corp Australia Sports Newsroom

The AFL and the Tasmanian Government have reached an agreement on a timeline for a decision on the state’s entry to be the big league.
After a stalemate following the release of the Carter report, AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and Tasmania Premier Peter Gutwein have agreed the much awaited decision will be early next year.

The commitment from the AFL will allow the government to resume talks with Hawthorn and North Melbourne on renewing their contracts with the state to play games next season.
The AFL commission needs to agree to expansion and then get the support of 12 of the 18 clubs for Tasmania to enter the competition, which the government hopes will be in about six years time".






Foxsports 24.8

"Exclusive: AFL Tasmania call expansion ceasefire in landmark peace deal
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has broken a landmark piece deal with Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein.

Tom Morris from Fox Sports@tommorris32
August 24th, 2021 10:13 am

The AFL and the Tasmanian government have brokered a landmark peace deal that will be confirmed as early as Tuesday morning.

Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein said he was “annoyed” when Colin Carter’s report did not categorically advocate for a 19th license in the state and threatened to dismiss Hawthorn and North Melbourne’s presence in the state for the 2022 season.
“If that means that AFL content is not in Tasmania next year, then be it on the AFL‘s head,” Mr Gutwein said on August 13".

What I expected. Both parties working together to reach the admission of tassie into the AFL. Gutwien gets his announcement of the last step to admission & the pressure is on clubs to vote yes.

Any comment telsor?

 

[Mr Taswegian]

What I expected. Both parties working together to reach the admission of tassie into the AFL. Gutwien gets his announcement of the last step to admission & the pressure is on clubs to vote yes.

Any comment telsor?

Just another delay tactic and come March next year it will just be a big astounding NO.The AFL don't want it to happen so will do everything to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[HPKS]

Just another delay tactic and come March next year it will just be a big astounding NO.The AFL don't want it to happen so will do everything to make sure it doesn't happen.

nope fully disagree. I normally have a bit of criticism for the AFL in regards to tassie in my posts but not this time. They have worked this to tassie’s advantage a lot more than a lot of people are prepared to say. They’ve regularly over the last month or so used their media connections to talk up the tassie bid and now have moved to the next step of highlighting how it will support big games as shown by two finals there this weekend.Imo the AFL have done a 180 on the issue and are behind a tassie side now. This next year talk is to buy them time to get every club in agreement to tassie being admitted. Imo we will see a tassie homegrown side in the AFL.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

nope fully disagree. I normally have a bit of criticism for the AFL in regards to tassie in my posts but not this time. They have worked this to tassie’s advantage a lot more than a lot of people are prepared to say. They’ve regularly over the last month or so used their media connections to talk up the tassie bid and now have moved to the next step of highlighting how it will support big games as shown by two finals there this weekend.Imo the AFL have done a 180 on the issue and are behind a tassie side now. This next year talk is to buy them time to get every club in agreement to tassie being admitted. Imo we will see a tassie homegrown side in the AFL.

The AFL only played the finals here because they needed to have somewhere to play games and the Tas government payed them half million per game.

 

[HPKS]

The AFL only played the finals here because they needed to have somewhere to play games and the Tas government payed them half million per game.

That’s the point though. Your looking at it from a combative point of view. I’m looking at it from a working together point of view. If the AFL were so against a tassie side they wouldn’t have given tassie the opportunity to showcase the state for two finals, especially an all vic final. Most likely tassie would have got the nsw derby if they didn’t want a tassie side and that’s it cause the other could have been played at AO. Like I said I can see tas government working hand in hand with the AFL in getting a side in the AFL.

 

[NoobPie]

nope fully disagree. I normally have a bit of criticism for the AFL in regards to tassie in my posts but not this time. They have worked this to tassie’s advantage a lot more than a lot of people are prepared to say. They’ve regularly over the last month or so used their media connections to talk up the tassie bid and now have moved to the next step of highlighting how it will support big games as shown by two finals there this weekend. Imo the AFL have done a 180 on the issue and are behind a tassie side now. This next year talk is to buy them time to get every club in agreement to tassie being admitted. Imo we will see a tassie homegrown side in the AFL.

Agree with most of this but I am not sure about the "180". These are all points made in the AFL's media release summary to the Carter Report

• The case for Tasmania is strong, particularly with the deep historical links to our game and there should be a team representing Tasmania in the AFL/AFLW national competitions - however the best form of that team is less clear-cut.
• Reaching a decision on a team to represent Tasmania should not be impacted by Covid but the decision around timing should. The AFL and the clubs will reasonably minimise new financial risks and the clubs should not be expected to make a final decision at a time when AFL industry finances are under stress
• Any outcome is dependent on locking in State Government funding guarantees and provision of appropriate stadia and related facilities in Tasmania and these should be finalised ahead of any decision.
• Tasmania is deserving of a team to represent the state on historic and fairness grounds and most economic arguments can be overcome as long as Government funding is secured.
• Many of the risks of starting a new team in Tasmania can be managed regardless of which pathway is chosen and key concerns raised in opposition to a team such as the size of the Tasmanian population, the north-south rivalry, player retention, dilution of talent, fixture complications and the state of the Tasmanian economy are all issues that can be managed and should not influence the decision on a team, whatever the eventual model.
• Tasmania is a football state and the cost of securing a football state are reasonable, fulfils the purpose of the AFL and is the right thing to do.

Unless you are talking about a 180 from a historic position? I reckon I would agree with a 90 degree turn - it's probably the first acknowledgement that many of the risks can be managed and that there is an obligation on the AFL on historic / cultural grounds to put a team there.

The need to get the clubs over the line was always fundamental though. And Carter's finding that...

• The Taskforce submitted that a 19th team would be net accretive because of incremental media rights but this review notes that AFL and industry advice is that broadcast rights are unlikely to reach the levels forecast by the Taskforce

Ultimately at least 12 of the 18 clubs would need to vote affirmatively for Tasmania getting a licence and they will be voting for a smaller piece of pie.

The AFL is almost certainly likely to be increasing its costs by more than any extra revenue comes in the down side risk also sits with the AFL.

What the Taskforce pointed out is the economic and social benefits to Tasmania of having an AFL team there are massive. Negotiating government funding and stadium build would be very much necessary before the AFL could take a proposal to clubs

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL only played the finals here because they needed to have somewhere to play games and the Tas government payed them half million per game.

half a million a game is token

 

[HPKS]

Agree with most of this but I am not sure about the "180". These are all points made in the AFL's media release summary to the Carter Report

Unless you are talking about a 180 from a historic position? I reckon I would agree with a 90 degree turn - it's probably the first acknowledgement that many of the risks can be managed and that there is an obligation on the AFL on historic / cultural grounds to put a team there.

The need to get the clubs over the line was always fundamental though. And Carter's finding that...

Ultimately at least 12 of the 18 clubs would need to vote affirmatively for Tasmania getting a licence and they will be voting for a smaller piece of pie.

The AFL is almost certainly likely to be increasing its costs by more than any extra revenue comes in the down side risk also sits with the AFL.

What the Taskforce pointed out is the economic and social benefits to Tasmania of having an AFL team there are massive. Negotiating government funding and stadium build would be very much necessary before the AFL could take a proposal to clubs

The Carter report is just that, a report. The report is tabled to the AFL then the AFL decides after reviewing the report what they will do next. They do not have to implement every part of the report. They’ll cherry pick just like they always do.
Imo the AFL have completely gone in the opposite direction to what they have previously been wanting ie fifo clubs, no standalone tassie club. There is no way the AFL accepts 1/2 mill now to possibly enhance a tassie bid only for a tassie side to lose money down the track.

As for the stadiums UTAS is earmarked for an upgrade and yep I’d agree with a shift from Blundstone. Imo it’s in a terrible position to use a tassie side to enhance tassie culture via after match eateries or nightlife for patrons. Unless they call that fish n chip shop within walking distance a restaurant lol

The AFL imo have started the sell to clubs first via the media, then the positive aspects of the report & now the fixture of two finals, like I’ve said one being an all Victorian final that could have been easiin Adelaide.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

The Carter report is just that, a report. The report is tabled to the AFL then the AFL decides after reviewing the report what they will do next. They do not have to implement every part of the report. They’ll cherry pick just like they always do.
Imo the AFL have completely gone in the opposite direction to what they have previously been wanting ie fifo clubs, no standalone tassie club. There is no way the AFL accepts 1/2 mill now to possibly enhance a tassie bid only for a tassie side to lose money down the track.

As for the stadiums UTAS is earmarked for an upgrade and yep I’d agree with a shift from Blundstone. Imo it’s in a terrible position to use a tassie side to enhance tassie culture via after match eateries or nightlife for patrons. Unless they call that fish n chip shop within walking distance a restaurant lol

The AFL imo have started the sell to clubs first via the media, then the positive aspects of the report & now the fixture of two finals, like I’ve said one being an all Victorian final that could have been easiin Adelaide.

So you believe they should only play games up here in the north?

 

[HPKS]

So you believe they should only play games up here in the north?

No I never said that I said a shift from Blundstone as in something that’s closer to the city, public transport & can be upgraded to atleast 30k. I favoured the Showgrounds redevelopment that Michael Kent tried to get up years ago but alas that ship has sailed. I lean towards KGV as I’ve stated before and outlined why I prefer it.