20th AFL Team

[Johnny Bananas]

Like I said before I think the main element will be something to do, the state finally being on the national stage, famous young people locally to look up to etc.

I think as to your specific points, jobs yes, whether that's construction of the stadium, working for the club, the catering and staff at the stadium, working for AFL Tasmania with it's 380 mil investment from the afl hq, working in development, there is a huge amount goes into afl operations for a club or in this case a state.

Restaurants and bars will finally be stimulated and busy from having an inner city stadium with regular events, travelers from other parts of tassie and interstate young travelers to mingle with.

So yeah, obviously not a huge difference to population off a small base, but I think at least a noticeable difference and a reason for a lot more young people to wanna stay local and not move to the mainland with as much urgency.

Okay. And do you think there's any other possible use of the money that a new stadium requires, that could have potentially created more jobs and done more for the restaurant and bar scene?

I'd also like to hear the logic on how having famous young people around locally means that others look up to them, let alone choose to stay in a city because of their presence. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of that happening outside of Hollywood.

 

[catters05]

Because they mostly don't have suitable internet and regional house prices are growing just as fast. Areas like Byron Bay have huge prices.


They want to be where the jobs, bars and restaurants are, more like. If you've ever heard of a young person claim they're choosing to stay in a city because there's an AFL team there, please do share the details.

Starlink is very sustainable for regional areas.

Byron Bay? That’s been priced out for many years. Is it due to the beaches and the lifestyle being the “attraction” of that area or everyone thinking they can be a celebrity there? I’m talking more cheaper inland where there is a huge difference in property prices for those wfh individuals.

An AFL team is an “attraction” for a city like Hobart, the stadium puts this team right in the city which will help the bars, restaurants, hotels etc with jobs and spending. The cricket in the summer is another “attraction” which will assist as well for these bars, restaurants etc so you boosting the local area with jobs, spending and having jobs at these clubs and the stadium as well. You attract more events and hopefully it keeps adding to those hospitality industries in the area and assist tourism. You are going to get better spending and jobs in the cbd then out at the current oval being used.

The AFL team also gives the region an opportunity to get behind as a collective group especially since they have wanted a club for so long which may sway the future youth of wanting to move to the mainland to find this stuff and invest locally in their community as more businesses hopefully build up in the area. Not going to be an overnight thing.

This isn’t really a GWS being created in West Sydney.

 

[RedV3x]

Why is there more population growth in capital cities over cheaper housing regional areas

Ignorance of conditions elsewhere and fear of the unknown, but mainly inertia and the big one - family.
In my day, it was all about moving to a place with surf as the only requirement.

 

[RedV3x]

Okay. And do you think there's any other possible use of the money that a new stadium requires

That's always the case, especially in NSW. where $billions have been wasted on various stadia.

that could have potentially created more jobs and done more for the restaurant and bar scene?

A stadium provides the infrastructure for business investment.
Building a hospital is only the start of taxpayer funded investment.

I'd also like to hear the logic on how having famous young people around locally means that others look up to them, let alone choose to stay in a city because of their presence.

A stadium creates big business. In Tasmania it's the perfect site to advantage local business.
In Perth they purposely built it away from local business so they could sell a green fields site as a bonus.

 

[Bjo187]

Okay. And do you think there's any other possible use of the money that a new stadium requires, that could have potentially created more jobs and done more for the restaurant and bar scene?

I'd also like to hear the logic on how having famous young people around locally means that others look up to them, let alone choose to stay in a city because of their presence. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of that happening outside of Hollywood.

I've said my peice in many different ways and examples already.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Ho

Why is there more population growth in capital cities over cheaper housing regional areas which would have suitable internet for WFH? Because there isn’t much else to do, majority of younger people want to be where the action and attractions are.

If the federal govt wont invest in Tasmania because they don’t care, then that’s that and no one can do much about that. But for me, I’d be spending on this stadium rather than those submarines.

Hospitals and schools or a sports stadium?
Just asking

 

[RedV3x]

Hospitals and schools or a sports stadium?

NO. Hospitals and schools should be accounted for as the need arises.
Stadiums are a very infrequent expense (unless you live in NSW)

 

[catters05]

Ho

Hospitals and schools or a sports stadium?
Just asking

in Hobart or anywhere?

 

[Aussie in exile]

in Hobart or anywhere?

Everywhere. I say again that if ALL sports want new stadia or upgrades to there already stadia that should pay for it themselves and not us tax payers

 

[catters05]

Everywhere. I say again that if ALL sports want new stadia or upgrades to there already stadia that should pay for it themselves and not us tax payers

no worries, that’s your right to have that opinion.

I can’t think of one stadium in Australia that didn’t have tax payers money spent on it. We don’t have billionaires running around wanting to privatize all our sporting teams which we probably don’t want.

My opinion is if you are building infrastructure that supports supports the hospitality industry to boost local jobs, promote spending and tourism across the state of Tasmania and boosting attractions like sporting clubs and other concert/events that don’t normally get to a location to entice future generations to stay and invest in their location then it could be good for some tax money to be spent on it.

if this stadium is going to shut out cricket and all other events and just be used for AFL 11 times a year or so then it’s a waste of money. It needs to be a multi use event stadium for all to get the best bang for buck and more spending/tourism money for tas, especially in those winter months.

Maybe I am too much glass half full, but see this as a massive positive for Hobart and Tasmania. I’d rather tax money spent on Hobart stadium than subs.

My only change is I’d rather see residential/commercial built right on the water and move the stadium inland a bit as there is no benefit of the stadium being right on the water, but still close proximity to cbd for walking.

This is all my own opinions which are irrelevant at the end of the day.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Everywhere. I say again that if ALL sports want new stadia or upgrades to there already stadia that should pay for it themselves and not us tax payers

But then why should the public get the externalities benefits of tourism when the government don't contribute anything? Governments tax flights, should the AFL instead get a clip of all extra flights to Hobart instead of governments if they fund the stadium?

 

[Macca180]

Everywhere. I say again that if ALL sports want new stadia or upgrades to there already stadia that should pay for it themselves and not us tax payers

I say again, go away Dickhead.

 

[RedV3x]

But then why should the public get the externalities benefits of tourism when the government don't contribute anything?

The Perth stadium was built as a multi-purpose events stadium.
it was almost a disaster as AFL didn't want to pay the exorbitant rents the government was charging
even though the WAFC was willing to give up Subiaco.
Cricket didn't any part of the new stadium before it was built yet wants to play there despite
lowish crowds and not giving up anything w.r.t. the WACA.
So really it's the other sports that should pay for the Perth stadium.

Governments tax flights, should the AFL instead get a clip of all extra flights to Hobart instead of governments if they fund the stadium?

The Perth government PAYS for certain events at the Perth Stadium
but completely ignore the contribution AFL has in regularly attracting fans.
Australian Football owned their own grounds in W.A., S.A.and Victoria and gave these up
but where has the valuation on those grounds and buildings gone.
Has any other sport given up significant parcels of land for the common good ?
Australian Football has always contributed to the building and maintenance of sporting grounds
by their regular high attendances. This and the land ownership has to be taken into account.
In effect Australian Football is paying for stadium upgrades by it's regular high attendances,
something other professional sports and obviously all amateur sports cannot say.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Lets reverse that, should the AFL and ALL Sports get the benefit of tax payers money?

 

[Bjo187]

Lets reverse that, should the AFL and ALL Sports get the benefit of tax payers money?

I'm happy for no sports to get any money including your favourites, it would mean the AFL extend their lead on all competitors, the ones that never put their hand in their own pocket (the afl is the only one and also has the biggest revenue by a big margin on all other Australian sports).

 

[RedV3x]

Lets reverse that, should the AFL and ALL Sports get the benefit of tax payers money?

You've change d the goalposts yet again.

On the subject of stadia, from it's very inception Australian Football facilitated the building of large stadiums.
In Sydney, Australian Footballwas banned fro enclosed grounds and no large stadia was built.
When this ban was removed, the SCG turned to Australian Football but they bought and developed their own home ground leaving the SCG to be it's quaint little ground untill....Australian Football arrived in the form of the Swans AFC.

In modern times, taxpayer's money has been used to in response to the demands of attendance and economic return for Australian Football.In modern times, taxpayer's money has been used to pork barrel elections w.r.t. rectangular grounds and now why have governments gifting taxpayer's money to the NRL for the sole reason that they can get away with it.

Now to answer the new direction of your question - where should taxpayer's money go w.r.t., sports, that is a difficult question.
Do you agree with the increasing trend to "buy" gold medals at the Olympics for sports that very few people are concerned about normally.
Should it be the government's responsibility to supply a diversity of sports to choose from or
should the government stick with the incumbent sports?
How much responsibility do you you put on a professional organisation to support grassroots in it's sport?
obviously the NRL does extremely little in this regard and the inventor of the code - North England does nothing.
there are lots of questions like these because there are lots of sports out there each with it's own story
but obviously there is only one truly Australian indigenous sport, Australian Football and that should command respect and support without bringing in the facts like how it dominates the Australian scenery.

 

[pOleK]

If I’m the AFL, similar to how they envisioned 2 teams in every state. I’d essentially be looking at 3 teams in the bigger populous states in NSW/ACT, QLD and WA.

Team 20: Canberra
Team 21: Northern Perth Suburbs
Team 22: North Brisbane/Sunshine Coast

Fixture then becomes the tricky part. The whole format would need to be adjusted. Do clubs accept losing a home game to play 10 home and away plus gather round? Do we keep 2-3 double up games to appease broadcasters and maintain 24 rounds? With fewer home games, will clubs still sell games to regional locations? Does the AFL introduce conferences/divisions system? Be interesting to see how it plays out

 

[Coolangatta]

If I’m the AFL, similar to how they envisioned 2 teams in every state. I’d essentially be looking at 3 teams in the bigger populous states in NSW/ACT, QLD and WA.

Team 20: Canberra
Team 21: Northern Perth Suburbs
Team 22: North Brisbane/Sunshine Coast

Fixture then becomes the tricky part. The whole format would need to be adjusted. Do clubs accept losing a home game to play 10 home and away plus gather round? Do we keep 2-3 double up games to appease broadcasters and maintain 24 rounds? With fewer home games, will clubs still sell games to regional locations? Does the AFL introduce conferences/divisions system? Be interesting to see how it plays out

I don’t think conferences are necessary unless the AFL gets to 24 teams. You want to keep your WA derby double ups etc.

22 teams = Eagles, Dockers, WA3 play twice etc.

24 and you’d need to increase to 25 games per year to keep those derbies and the season is too long as it is.

IMO the AFL shouldn’t put a limit on the number of teams it has. I agree that Perth and Canberra need a team and eventually SEQ will, too.

Beyond that, there’s nowhere else to go, at least not yet. Things can change in 50 years but it all depends on secondary markets and the commercial success of those games.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I don’t think conferences are necessary unless the AFL gets to 24 teams. You want to keep your WA derby double ups etc.

22 teams = Eagles, Dockers, WA3 play twice etc.

24 and you’d need to increase to 25 games per year to keep those derbies and the season is too long as it is.

IMO the AFL shouldn’t put a limit on the number of teams it has. I agree that Perth and Canberra need a team and eventually SEQ will, too.

Beyond that, there’s nowhere else to go, at least not yet. Things can change in 50 years but it all depends on secondary markets and the commercial success of those games.

Same for Canberra/GWS/Sydney and GC/Bris/Qld3 playing twice. Each area gets six "derbies".

That’d get you to 23 games each, which is the same as now.

Then group the SA/Victorian/Tasmanian teams together and rotate their double ups.

 

[Coolangatta]

Same for Canberra/GWS/Sydney and GC/Bris/Qld3 playing twice. Each area gets six "derbies".

That’d get you to 23 games each, which is the same as now.

Then group the SA/Victorian/Tasmanian teams together and rotate their double ups.

Yeah I’d group the SA teams with Tas and just rotate the Vics.

It makes too much sense which is why it’ll probably never happen.

In any case, there’s always a way to make expansion work.

If it ever did get to 24 teams, I’m sure they could come up with some formats for four conferences of six teams each that would make some geographical sense.

I always thought if there were ever a New Zealand team, they could go in one of the Victorian conferences, while Tasmania goes in the other.

Another conference would be NSW/QLD/ACT and the other would probably be four WA teams (South West in 50 years time) + two SA.

 

[Run n Spread]

We do not need any conferences. 20 teams is too many.
Tassie in and GWS out (simply not viable)
Gold Coast out NT in.

 

[StevoJenkins]

We do not need any conferences. 20 teams is too many.
Tassie in and GWS out (simply not viable)
Gold Coast out NT in.

Lol.

If you think that GWS and the Suns are not viable, just wait 'till we put a team in the NT.

 

[Macca180]

nah if there are cuts should be in Victoria

Canberra in
NT in
Tassie in

GWS and Gold Coast stay

3 teams in SA and /or WA is debatable

 

[kalex6251]

food for thought



[edit] despite what people might think darwin is just not viable (fwiw, neither is cairns - and for the same reasons)

 

[Coolangatta]

nah if there are cuts should be in Victoria

Canberra in
NT in
Tassie in

GWS and Gold Coast stay

3 teams in SA and /or WA is debatable

The vic clubs have all the power though to decide on relocating. They all want to stay put.

I think it should be Canberra next, then in 30 years, a third Perth club and a second Brisbane club. Both will be viable by then, I think Perth already is.

If you wanted to tap into new markets, that could instead be a Sunshine Coast club and a South West WA club, but they are much smaller markets than their capital city counterparts.

The real tough decision imo isn’t what states to expand into next, it’s where within them do you go.

WA3 and QLD3 seem like the obvious choice to me for teams 21 and 22, but whether you just service already existing markets (Perth and Brisbane) or service new locations (sunny coast, busselton) is a whole other matter. I mean the latter does offer novelty and something exciting.