News 19th AFL Team Discussion

[Couch Coach]

invade King island maybe?

They wouldn't dare.

King Island Dairy is owned by a Chinese company.

 

[KinderSmock]

Yeah, I'm forever a Pie but I would buy a membership to a new Tassie team and they would fairly quickly entrench themselves as my second team. A relocated North is something I could never get behind.

Same here.

Even though I was a North fan until September 25, 2010 (I was young at the time and technically if they don't win the Grand Final and you support them the week before, you're not a bandwagoner). North's issue is that it's a failure, has a history with a suburb already and would want to honour that, not Tassie, and has been thrust upon us. We're clear: a 19th license, please and thank you.

 

[noideaatall]

You got any data to support that? Everything I have read still has Tassie with a dependency ratio far higher than anywhere else in the country. You are suggesting that has changed or will in the future?

I like the "idea" of a Tassie AFL club but if the numbers don't support it, ie. the club can never be self-sufficient, then unless something like state government support comes in, I can't see it as a prudent long term move for the AFL. I do note that I am speaking from a position of ignorance!

No I don't have any data to support that but the key ingredients - rising numbers of sea changers, growth of the fishing industry & boutique tourism, massive rises in house prices all over tassie and budding building industry - are all well documented. The rest is my interpretation, you may view it differently. Still, I don't disagree that the numbers won't support it. My concern, from the AFL's point of view, that will likely lose Tassie as a ground roots football state.

 

[sideswipe]

No I don't have any data to support that but the key ingredients - rising numbers of sea changers, growth of the fishing industry & boutique tourism, massive rises in house prices all over tassie and budding building industry - are all well documented. The rest is my interpretation, you may view it differently. Still, I don't disagree that the numbers won't support it. My concern, from the AFL's point of view, that will likely lose Tassie as a ground roots football state.

Guess we shall have to wait and see what comes out of the 2021 census data which is due to be released this month. All available data points to Tassie still having the highest dependency ratio by a mile. The ingredients that you cite have not translated into any actual demographic effect as yet.

 

[Mooresome]

I guess while the afl is supporting Gold Coast with a whole team of 1st round picks plus all the other handouts ,they cannot afford to help out a new Afl club ,and in fact i think calling afl a state wide comp when not all states are represented is a little bit inaccurate.

 

[leon123]

You got any data to support that? Everything I have read still has Tassie with a dependency ratio far higher than anywhere else in the country. You are suggesting that has changed or will in the future?

I like the "idea" of a Tassie AFL club but if the numbers don't support it, ie. the club can never be self-sufficient, then unless something like state government support comes in, I can't see it as a prudent long term move for the AFL. I do note that I am speaking from a position of ignorance!

I do a lot of work in the demographics field.... I agree, it is unlikely (based on demographic assumptions) Tasie even within 20 years would have a sufficient population base to be 'commercially viable' for an AFL team.

But, things change, core assumptions are modified - but I strongly doubt significant changes to inter-state and overseas migration to Tasie will result over the coming decades.

 

[KinderSmock]

I cannot understand how they can keep adding talent…

I'd like to know whose accountant they've hit up and whether or not a dry cleaning business secretly sponsors them. Electrolux could well be laundering something beyond carpets.

 

[KinderSmock]

The best argument for Tassie AFL is that fans will go if you give us something better than Hawthorn v Gold Coast or North Melbourne v GWS. I swear the AFL thinks Launceston is in Queensland and Hobart is Sydney as they're favourite games are expansion or failing sides - we want Victorian teams!!!!! Fremantle is another regular offender.

It's not like Tassie has to compete with other sports. The NBL is done by the early season and can only seat 4000 fans, we don't have an abundance of must-see shows, our state league isn't that great, people don't flock to attend the folk festivals, and our entertainment as a whole is a lot less. If you played Collingwood v Hawthorn at UTAS or Blundstone or the new stadium, it would be a sellout in about an hour. I remember a pre-season match in Launceston in 2015 - that was a near sell-out for a match that didn't count. We won, too and it was one of the best nights of my life . People went to the Essendon match and the Elimination Finals and they were great venues. Sure, their capacity isn't good but who turns up to GWS or Metricon? You can't tell me there are Collingwood fans who stand in queues to buy tickets on the Gold Coast - they'll just about give you a free ticket. People will turn up to games on a regular basis, too, just don't give us crappy teams because they're failing at their home venue.

 

[sr36]

You got any data to support that? Everything I have read still has Tassie with a dependency ratio far higher than anywhere else in the country. You are suggesting that has changed or will in the future?

I like the "idea" of a Tassie AFL club but if the numbers don't support it, ie. the club can never be self-sufficient, then unless something like state government support comes in, I can't see it as a prudent long term move for the AFL. I do note that I am speaking from a position of ignorance!

I can't see the dependency ratio not continuing. Too small, not enough job opportunities to keep youth. Adelaide is 6 times the size of Hobart and except for covid has always had a big drain of the young to the bigger cities.

 

[noideaatall]

Guess we shall have to wait and see what comes out of the 2021 census data which is due to be released this month. All available data points to Tassie still having the highest dependency ratio by a mile. The ingredients that you cite have not translated into any actual demographic effect as yet.

Yep. Be interesting from Tassie's point of view. The sea change has brough retirees as well so may not be that significant of a change. I have no doubt it will change but also have no doubt Tassie has, at present, an ageing population and that in future that demographic will shift dramatically as the aged die out.

 

[noideaatall]

I can't see the dependency ratio not continuing. Too small, not enough job opportunities to keep youth. Adelaide is 6 times the size of Hobart and except for covid has always had a big drain of the young to the bigger cities.

The job opportunities point is where you are wrong. The aged provide job opportunities. As do the fish and a growing building industry. The loss of jobs, at least decent paying ones, is why the youth have traditionally moved to the north island. Turn that trend around and you have a stable population. Add sea change and you have a growing one. Tassie currently is importing labour from the islander nations to replace the lack of backpackers due to covid. Check the current rising house price trend: rural Tassie and South Australia. The point is the AFL might be best suited to look to the future rather than structure its development around the current status of Australian demographics.

 

[jmac70]

Yep. Be interesting from Tassie's point of view. The sea change has brough retirees as well so may not be that significant of a change. I have no doubt it will change but also have no doubt Tassie has, at present, an ageing population and that in future that demographic will shift dramatically as the aged die out.

Don’t worry, there will always be more aged to replace those that go the way of the dodo

 

[sideswipe]

The job opportunities point is where you are wrong. The aged provide job opportunities. As do the fish and a growing building industry. The loss of jobs, at least decent paying ones, is why the youth have traditionally moved to the north island. Turn that trend around and you have a stable population. Add sea change and you have a growing one. Tassie currently is importing labour from the islander nations to replace the lack of backpackers due to covid. Check the current rising house price trend: rural Tassie and South Australia. The point is the AFL might be best suited to look to the future rather than structure its development around the current status of Australian demographics.

Sorry, what did I say about job opportunities? Demographics are all about looking to what the future might be. The high dependency ratio in TAS points to a future falling population, if nothing else changes. If you can point to something that goes against that, have at it.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[manicpie]

A 19th team? WTF, If it was up to me we'd be back to 16 teams. Piss the GC and GWS right off. There's hardly enough players coming through for now let alone if we add another team, then they will get concessions for extra players etc.

 

[Seedsfan]

Last thing we need is another team

 

[stormskye]

I’m from tassie, live in wa. I don’t support a tassie team for multiple reasons. I don’t think it’s sustainable, I’ll never follow them over the pies, just couldn’t switch. Biggest issue I see is supporter numbers (most tassie people are entrenched in teams) and retention/attraction. I love tassie, it’s a beautiful state, but for young people not so sure they’d want to go. There’s also less job opportunities for families to move to if a player has one. Also talk about being a big fish in small town. Players like degoey would have no escape. If say Coll or tassie we’re chasing a player, I just can’t see one choosing to live in tassie over Melb. The salary cap for tassie would have to be significantly higher to attract and retain players, which is not sustainable. I just can’t see it being successful. I’d love it to be, just can’t see it. The go home factor for players would be huge if drafted from interstate IMO. The afl already has enough teams. Gold Coast and GWS are not doing well.

 

[whiskeytown]

1. Merge two Melbourne clubs together

• Melbourne and North Melbourne?
• St Kilda and Hawthorn become the ‘Eastern _____’

Etc… but I can’t see any clubs agreeing to this. And with the AFLs equalisation policies, St Kilda know they will continue to get handouts no matter how poorly they perform financially. So I think this option is near impossible

2. Relocate a club. Would the taswegians get behind this? Crucially the TAS state govt probably won’t and thereby it kills off any new stadium or yearly injection of taxpayers money

3. 19 teams and a bye… no commercial sense in this without the introduction of a 10th game each week and a final series of 10 teams

4. 20 teams… what’s the viable 20th team? A third team in WA? Canberra? Darwin isn’t viable. A tassie team and an even less viable 20th team would require a long term commitment from the AFL.

In they had real balls they’d pursue NZ as the 20th team. It’s easily the biggest remaining market… and would do wonders for spreading the reach of the game

Which brings me to option 5.

Fold the Gold Coast and grant it’s licence to Tasmania

To me this is the easiest, cheapest, most viable option…

The Gold Coast has no history, minimal fan base and struggles to post a financial profit

But this would require those at AFL house to swallow their sizeable egos and admit that the Gold Coast was a poor choice for a team

 

[noideaatall]

Sorry, what did I say about job opportunities? Demographics are all about looking to what the future might be. The high dependency ratio in TAS points to a future falling population, if nothing else changes. If you can point to something that goes against that, have at it.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't think you did - I was quoting someone else. I've expressed my opinion but no more invested in it than I am this whole AFL team in Tassie thing. Here is a random stat. 15 years ago we had the highest rate of participation in Australian Rules for men between 5 – 39 years. I guess now we have the highest geriatric participation.

 

[76woodenspooners]

invade King island maybe?

King Island is already part of Tassie?

 

[76woodenspooners]

You got any data to support that? Everything I have read still has Tassie with a dependency ratio far higher than anywhere else in the country. You are suggesting that has changed or will in the future?

I like the "idea" of a Tassie AFL club but if the numbers don't support it, ie. the club can never be self-sufficient, then unless something like state government support comes in, I can't see it as a prudent long term move for the AFL. I do note that I am speaking from a position of ignorance!

Not sure that the financial wonks have figured out how to measure the value of a project that has cultural significance - and a Tassie team would have cultural significance.

A good case study is the NSW Askin government who was vocally opposed to the Sydney Opera House, complaining it was costing too much. When he came into power he (effectively) sacked the architect and had bureaucrats finish the project. Askin’s actions have since been proven to have been very shortsighted and a terrible mistake, hundreds of times over.

La Sagrada Familia in Spain is another example (not one taxpayer peseta has ever gone into the project, if anything the government have milked money out of the project; yet the value of the project to Spain / Catalonia/ Barcelona is immeasurable)

The reason why cultural projects are difficult to measure is because they have higher order effects. Their effects aren’t just a step change going from one state of $X value to another state of $Y value, but the change has acceleration. And that acceleration can be a very difficult rate to accurately predict, so the error bars on the outcome are huge.

(I too am speaking from a position Of ignorance)

 

[sideswipe]

Not sure that the financial wonks have figured out how to measure the value of a project that has cultural significance - and a Tassie team would have cultural significance.

A good case study is the NSW Askin government who was vocally opposed to the Sydney Opera House, complaining it was costing too much. When he came into power he (effectively) sacked the architect and had bureaucrats finish the project. Askin’s actions have since been proven to have been very shortsighted and a terrible mistake, hundreds of times over.

La Sagrada Familia in Spain is another example (not one taxpayer peseta has ever gone into the project, if anything the government have milked money out of the project; yet the value of the project to Spain / Catalonia/ Barcelona is immeasurable)

The reason why cultural projects are difficult to measure is because they have higher order effects. Their effects aren’t just a step change going from one state of $X value to another state of $Y value, but the change has acceleration. And that acceleration can be a very difficult rate to accurately predict, so the error bars on the outcome are huge.

(I too am speaking from a position Of ignorance)

With respect I think they are ridiculous and completely irrelevant examples. Cultural significance is a nebulous concept - especially when it comes to sporting clubs. And your examples required a finite spend, not something that might require financial assistance forever.

If a club is not forecast to be ever financially viable on its own (eg if GC and GWS grow as hoped, they will be) which might well be the case in such a small fragmented market like TAS, then it would be financially negligent for a team to be established.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The_ General]

Why not just start small and add a Tasmanian team to the VFL? The competition already has a number of interstate teams not affiliated with an AFL team.
If the Tasmanian people get behind it, it adds weight to the argument to put a team in the AFL. If the attendance numbers are low, there is little state backing or the sponsors don't come, then it might be safe to say that it is not going to be viable.

 

[loki04]

Wouldn’t read too much into it Dave. Poorly written story really. Claims 3 clubs are against it but then only includes a quote from Sydney expressing reservations. I’d assume if they had a stronger quote from either us or GCS then they’d have included them as well.

As a supporter, I’m not sure why we all shouldn’t have reservations. A 19th and potentially 20th team dilutes the talent pool and signals years of compromised drafts. How does that help the CFC, or the competition?

You would think relocating a team cough North Melbourne cough, would make more sense and be a more viable option.

 

[Forethought]

I write this with being lucky to have knowledge from the AFL executive.

GC Suns and GWS expansion clubs were created from within the AFL. This was from a recommendation from Bernard Salt who is Australia’s no 1 Demographer . In short his recommendations were that any national code that didn’t have teams in the western Sydney market and Gold Coast market would lose ground to the other codes. These 2 areas had the highest population growth in Australia.

So it was the AFL’s wish to expand and fund these teams for the future of the code.

At that time there was 16 teams and the voting approval to pass that was set by the commission was 12 of the AFL presidents voting yes.

Now moving to the Tassie bid for a 19th licence. This is not the wish for the AFL. So for this reason that it’s not driven by them they have placed more financial requirement to get the approval.

Now you must understand the financial impact on the AFL should a 19th licence be approved.

1: No additional televised games so no media rights increase to fund the Tassie team.

2: Because of the new GWS / GC Suns coming in the AFL got an additional $40m per year in there media rights. This partially funded their expansion but still didn’t cover the costs.

3: All AFL teams are funded the TPP at a cost of $13.2m per club. This would be a lose to the AFL of that $13.2m as no real new revenue.

4: Clubs also get depending on their draw and who they are an additional equalisation amount. The Pies get the lowest of all 18 AFL clubs and that is approximately $6m per year.

5: GC Suns get $13m more than the Pies receive.

6: Again going back to the AFL isn’t driving this but the Tassie licence is. The AFL wants to protect the Code from the financial burden they know will cost the new club. For this they want $20m unconditionally guaranteed from the Tassie Licence. This basically the Tasdie Government or jointly with a 3rd party.

7: From the AFL they won’t gain any revenue but will cap their costs to the new licence at Circa $20m per year being TPP and min equalisation compo. Plus an estimated $40m contribution to the Tassie stadium to ensure they. O troll the commercial rights to the stadium.

8: The AFL lost nearly $200m from COVID then also paid $150m to take over Marvel in the last couple of years. ( They could have waited till 2027 and got Marvel for $1, however this effected 6 teams ground deals so the AFL wanted control to help these teams out)

9: The AFL’s biggest other dilemma is they can’t or won’t stay with a 19 team structure as this creates a bye for teams in round 1 and also now creates all teams having to have 2 byes through the year.

10. They need either a 20th team to create extra revenue or going back to an 18 team comp. As you can appreciate the AFL’s preferences is an 18 team comp. Hence all the North Melbourne talk.

11: Let’s go the 19th licence and a 20th option. ( 20th likely 2 years after the 19th licence issued) Now there is only one putting there hand up for the 20th licence and that is NT. The NT Government has set up a bid team already.

12: This I can tell you will never happen. The Darwin market is 125,000 population and no big business to support. I could keep going and going on this. If anyone comments on this please ensure you’ve visited NT before you comment.

13: The AFL’s biggest player issues with the 19th / 20th licence. This solely sits around 2 Player issues. Player retention and Player acquisitions.

When you look at the GC Suns and GWS 10 years on and they have just started to get a hand on player retention. This supported by elite training facilities being supplied, but they can never change that these teams will play in front of Home games of no more than 15-18,000. The key players always looking to going to the powerhouse clubs. Both Tesms having to pay about 15-25% above the odds to retain current players this cresting numerous salary cap issues to which they have to lose players.

How many top 10 drafts do you honestly think would resign to a Darwin based team after their initial 2 year contract. It’s a culture shock that a Vic based player would never have experienced. Add that there preseason is in the Wet season and it rains almost every day. Is 35 degrees and 95% humidity. Good luck bulking up.

Player Acquisitions: Let’s look at GCS and GWS post initial sign ups. The best acquisition I can recall for GWS was Heath Shaw

23

Heath Shaw

Age

38

Ht

183cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.0

5star

K

15.8

5star

HB

5.2

4star

M

6.3

5star

T

2.4

4star

MG

472.4

5star

D

14.5

3star

K

11.0

4star

HB

3.5

2star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.6

3star

MG

244.0

4star

D

13.4

4star

K

9.6

4star

HB

3.8

3star

M

5.8

5star

T

1.4

4star

from the Pies. By the way it was a straight swap with us getting Adams so not really a great acquisition without losing a great player as well. Yes they have had a few come in here and there but nothing to the quality they were losing.

Suns biggest Acquisition was Weller a QKD boy that wanted to come home. The Subs had to give pick 2 when the market said it should have been between picks 12-16. So they had to over pay to tell the Qld players will bring you home if you want.
Again they have had a few like Ellis and others but they came again for money that they couldn’t get anywhere else. Witts there best recruit but at that time he wasn’t high profile.

So what hope do clubs in Hobart or Darwin have if Gild Coast and Sydney are desirable.

Both these new teams will fail terribly.

Hence my early point. The AFL want someone else to pay for what they know is going to happen .

Huge point. The AFL has set this high financially requirement for these new licenses to ensure they please the 18 presidents that the code won’t financially be overly impacted.

For this the commission only requires a 1/3 minority approval for the sign off on the Tassie licence. Only 7/18 have to vote yes and it approved.

Note on the GWS / Suns vote it was unanimous with all 16 presidents voting yes.

ATM internally there are 6 president that have said they will vote no ( not what’s reported of 3)

This is why the AFL and the Commission are afraid as they don’t want a fractured code moving forward with 8-10 presidents saying no. It will create an “ I told you so “ for the next 30 years.

You can add the state of the game in these new areas is so low it’s not funny and why are Tassie only going to do something about it if they win the licence.

These are just the top end issues but there is plenty more lower ones being discussed as well.

I hope this gives you a better perspective on what is really going on.

 

[76woodenspooners]

With respect I think they are ridiculous and completely irrelevant examples. Cultural significance is a nebulous concept - especially when it comes to sporting clubs.

Agree that they’re nebulous concepts, which was kinda my point

And your examples required a finite spend, not something that might require financial assistance forever.

Hah, you do know that La Sagrada Familia has been in the construction phase (and continues to be) for longer than the Collingwood Football Club has existed?

And as for the Sydney Opera House, the SSO and OA are hardly finite costs.

If a club is not forecast to be ever financially viable on its own (eg if GC and GWS grow as hoped, they will be)

Sure. The AFL were up front that Suns and Giants would always be 20 year projects. They’re half way through that, I’d imagine the AFL would have hoped that they would have been further progressed, but as we saw with the relocation of the South Melbourne Swans, these things do take time.

which might well be the case in such a small fragmented market like TAS, then it would be financially negligent for a team to be established.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah, dunno. I’d be surprised if you couldn’t fudge the ‘assumptions’ to justify any outcome.