Tasmania AFL Say No To Tassie Team

[telsor]

How many chances does the MFC get? Oh that's right, first club, foundation club, first club, joke club.

How many chances do Port get?

 

[Papa G]

How many chances do Port get?

One.

 

[Papa G]

I've said a number of times that I'd like a Tas team, as part of further expansion (my preferred scenario is eventual expansion to 23 teams, one of which would be from Tas).

In terms of financial viability, I see a Tas team as being on a similar standing to the poorer Vic teams, which, not coincidentally, is what they keep getting compared to...My response is that if they are to replace an existing side, they need to be in a substantially better financial position, and my arguments 'talking down' a Tas team are arguing that they're not in such a position.

Jeez you rabbit on about financial viability a lot. If financial viability was the only factor, Richmond would have folded several times. Tasmania adds more to a national football league than the 8th 9th and 10th ranked Victorian side. Qualitative measures are not the be all and end all. The fact people still actually support a club such as Richmond is testament to this.

 

[The_Wookie]

Jeez you rabbit on about financial viability a lot. If financial viability was the only factor, Richmond would have folded several times. Tasmania adds more to a national football league than the 8th 9th and 10th ranked Victorian side. Qualitative measures are not the be all and end all. The fact people still actually support a club such as Richmond is testament to this.

That might be because its apparently the key factor in deciding whether they get a team or not. Whatever Richmond position - and its worth noting there hasnt been any serious doubt over the Tigers since 1989.

How exactly does a Tasmanian side add more besides another geographic location, that isnt already offered by Victorian sides besides another 5 games a season in Tasmania? Qualitative measures are EVERYTHING when it comes to setting up a new side of you are the AFL, especially given how the last side that "deserved it" - your own club, which was admitted in a joke of a process - has performed far more recently.

 

[Papa G]

We don't all live in a world of spreadsheets and BigFooty moderation. A united Tasmanian AFL side wold offer the competition and the region much more than the least thought of Melbourne suburb with 100 years of failure up its sleeve.

 

[The_Wookie]

We don't all live in a world of spreadsheets and BigFooty moderation. A united Tasmanian AFL side wold offer the competition and the region much more than the least thought of Melbourne suburb with 100 years of failure up its sleeve.

thats a nice answer, and yet another crack at me, but doesnt answer the question - just what and how exactly do they add to the national competition that we dont already have?

 

[Engimal]

thats a nice answer, and yet another crack at me, but doesnt answer the question - just what and how exactly do they add to the national competition that we dont already have?

A representation of an entire state that is currently not being represented. There are currently five out of eight states/territory represented in the "national" competition.

 

[Papa G]

The ACT is represented by an NRL team and a Super 15 team, so if we're talking professional football, only the NT and Tasmania isn't represented.

 

[The_Wookie]

A representation of an entire state that is currently not being represented. There are currently five out of eight states/territory represented in the "national" competition.

Thats great, but the AFL is a business not an institute of geography - theres no definition of national that requires a team from every state and territory - example: every national sporting competition ever. The AFL is a business as much as anything, and theres nothing to be added to the overall competition in broadcast rights, exposure or development that Tasmania can offer that the league or game doesnt already have.

 

[Engimal]

Thats great, but the AFL is a business not an institute of geography - theres no definition of national that requires a team from every state and territory - example: every national sporting competition ever. The AFL is a business as much as anything, and theres nothing to be added to the overall competition in broadcast rights, exposure or development that Tasmania can offer that the league or game doesnt already have.

I agree with you, for the most part. That realisation is why I've largely stopped following the AFL over the past two or so years. I used to watch every game and now I just watch North. The AFL cares more about places that don't care about it than they do about a diehard AFL state. It's an unfortunate reality that will hopefully see our government and state as a whole cut ties with the AFL in the near future.

 

[Papa G]

If it's simply a business, then let's Piss off a couple of Melbourne clubs that bugger all market presence even after a hundred years of trying. The other 7 or 8 clubs in this oversaturated product category will simply absorb them over time

 

[The_Wookie]

If it's simply a business, then let's Piss off a couple of Melbourne clubs that bugger all market presence even after a hundred years of trying. The other 7 or 8 clubs in this oversaturated product category will simply absorb them over time

If it was that cut throat, your club would have been cut years ago. Im amazed that you even bother with this argument like your club is some financial behemoth, when its not been profitable for most of the decade.

 

[sherb]

Thats great, but the AFL is a business not an institute of geography - theres no definition of national that requires a team from every state and territory - example: every national sporting competition ever. The AFL is a business as much as anything, and theres nothing to be added to the overall competition in broadcast rights, exposure or development that Tasmania can offer that the league or game doesnt already have.

It's also responsible for the game.

 

[sherb]

If it's simply a business, then let's Piss off a couple of Melbourne clubs that bugger all market presence even after a hundred years of trying. The other 7 or 8 clubs in this oversaturated product category will simply absorb them over time

Well, yeah.

Personally I want to see all the Vic clubs stay.

But if people are going to persistently come here and argue the "it's a business" angle, then using that logic some Melbourne clubs must surely be culled.

 

[The_Wookie]

It's also responsible for the game.

Thats true, but it has nothing to do with teams joining the league, that is purely a business decision of the league. Tasmanias status in the game is long established and doesnt and shouldnt hinge on whether it has an AFL team or not.

Well, yeah.

Personally I want to see all the Vic clubs stay.

But if people are going to persistently come here and argue the "it's a business" angle, then using that logic some Melbourne clubs must surely be culled.

The league has clearly stated a number of times that Tasmanian teams continually fail at the business end, so you'll have to forgive me if thats what I keep turning to instead of just searching my feelings for an argument.

People who say that Victorian clubs should be culled on financial grounds are clearly not cognizant of the fact that several non victorian clubs could have been culled under the same criteria - Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney are all heavily reliant on AFL funding and guarantees to survive, and even Adelaide was taking AFL assistance via the SANFL until last year. (and sure you can bring up the stadium deal in Adelaide...but thats also the key argument for the melbourne clubs soooo...).

Further people who suggest culling Melbourne clubs have no idea just how hard a prospect that is - not the least of which reqiuires clubs to literally vote themselves out of the league. We wouldnt have lost Fitzroy were it not for the fact that the club went into Administration and the Adminstrator signed a document guaranteeing no legal action. We're talking about a league that dare not be seen chancing legal consequences to anything - see Melbourne and Tanking, Kurt Tippet, James Hird and more, and people expect them to take action against a team?? They couldn't even get North to take a 100 million bribe to go north.

 

[sherb]

Thats true, but it has nothing to do with teams joining the league, that is purely a business decision of the league. Tasmanias status in the game is long established and doesnt and shouldnt hinge on whether it has an AFL team or not.

Because the AFL looks after the game itself, it has an obligation to existing heartlands as well.

As I have argued before, the AFL is hopelessly conflicted by looking after both the AFL competition and the game itself. Because the dollars will always win out.

Tasmania could not be a better example.

The league has clearly stated a number of times that Tasmanian teams continually fail at the business end, so you'll have to forgive me if thats what I keep turning to instead of just searching my feelings for an argument.

So I presume you agreed with the AFL's handling of the Essendon saga? I presume you agree that Melbourne tanked, but didn't really? And so on.

In other words, the AFL has a history of making decisions and taking positions purely out of self-interest, you know that as well as I do.

And it's that AFL you are suddenly taking the word of?

 

[The_Wookie]

Because the AFL looks after the game itself, it has an obligation to existing heartlands as well.

As I have argued before, the AFL is hopelessly conflicted by looking after both the AFL competition and the game itself. Because the dollars will always win out.

We're in agreement on this, but the football politics of the 70s and 80s made this situation inevitable. Victoria was never going to let itself be controlled by the whims and wishes of the smaller football states.

So I presume you agreed with the AFL's handling of the Essendon saga? I presume you agree that Melbourne tanked, but didn't really? And so on.

In other words, the AFL has a history of making decisions and taking positions purely out of self-interest, you know that as well as I do.

And it's that AFL you are suddenly taking the word of?

On matters of finance I think the AFL are doing and have done a sterling job since transitioning to the Commission in 1993. On other matters however, I think they are far to concerned about harm minimisation and legal consequence - especially when it comes to tanking, draft manipulation, drug taking and a range of other issues they are too soft on for fear of court action - they havent taken the long handle to someone since 2001-2002 and the Blues.

However on finance, no I dont really have any issues with the AFL - and Ive spent years looking at them closer than most.

 

[sherb]

We're in agreement on this, but the football politics of the 70s and 80s made this situation inevitable. Victoria was never going to let itself be controlled by the whims and wishes of the smaller football states.

We've said this before - despite being the "A"FL, it's a Victorian show. That is beyond doubt.

But this isn't a matter of giving Tasmania control, or power, or influence - this is just about giving an AFL heartland state its own AFL side.

On matters of finance I think the AFL are doing and have done a sterling job since transitioning to the Commission in 1993. On other matters however, I think they are far to concerned about harm minimisation and legal consequence - especially when it comes to tanking, draft manipulation, drug taking and a range of other issues they are too soft on for fear of court action - they havent taken the long handle to someone since 2001-2002 and the Blues.

However on finance, no I dont really have any issues with the AFL - and Ive spent years looking at them closer than most.

You may be right.

But it may also be very possible - even likely - that the AFL has a rigid, ideological position not to let Tasmania into the AFL (for whatever reason) and their public spin and PR simply reflects that.

In which case, it wouldn't matter how effective or brilliant or acceptable or the Tassie proposal was, they simply would not acknowledge as such. Because it doesn't fit their agenda.

That is how the AFL works.

 

[sherb]

If it was that cut throat, your club would have been cut years ago. Im amazed that you even bother with this argument like your club is some financial behemoth, when its not been profitable for most of the decade.

If it's "a business" as you say, then I would like to see you argue that case across the entire competition.

In other words, I would like to see you questioning the position of all AFL clubs not pulling their weight (irrespective of location). At the moment you are just using the argument only against Tasmania.

It would make your position on this far more consistent and logical.

For me - I want all teams to stay - but I am not in the "it's a business" camp when it comes to the merits of clubs being in the AFL. As I have pointed out before, there is very much an element of "the game", history, contribution and (to throw in one business term to address that side of the argument) market retention in where I am coming from.

 

[Papa G]

If it was that cut throat, your club would have been cut years ago. Im amazed that you even bother with this argument like your club is some financial behemoth, when its not been profitable for most of the decade.

How come you never bring up the multi millions given to many Melbourne clubs over many many years to remain viable, I think they call it the Competitive Balance Fund these days? I don't see the "interstate clubs" being compensated for constantly getting shitty time slots so the like likes of Carlton can get 7 Friday night matches.

 

[The_Wookie]

If it's "a business" as you say, then I would like to see you argue that case across the entire competition.

The entire competition isnt trying for admission. .

In other words, I would like to see you questioning the position of all AFL clubs not pulling their weight (irrespective of location). At the moment you are just using the argument only against Tasmania.

Thats because Tasmania is the only one trying to get in to the competition. I dont need to justify a business case for entry for teams that are already in the competition.

It would make your position on this far more consistent and logical.

It would fit your agenda, but has nothing to do with Tasmania joining the competition.

For me - I want all teams to stay - but I am not in the "it's a business" camp when it comes to the merits of clubs being in the AFL. As I have pointed out before, there is very much an element of "the game", history, contribution and (to throw in one business term to address that side of the argument) market retention in where I am coming from.

I want all teams to stay. I want a tasmanian side. I dont believe that the two are mutually exclusive and I have doubts over its viability. Thats it.

 

[The_Wookie]

How come you never bring up the multi millions given to many Melbourne clubs over many many years to remain viable, I think they call it the Competitive Balance Fund these days? I don't see the "interstate clubs" being compensated for constantly getting shitty time slots so the like likes of Carlton can get 7 Friday night matches.

I dont bring it up, because you do, and Im addressing that - after all you never bring up the fact that your club required millions from the AFL and SANFL to remain a going concern, you only pushed the non viable victorian club side, and then have the temerity to claim that Im the only biased one here? Get real.. Im addressing your posts when i say this.

Further, I dont see Victorian clubs guaranteed 22 games a year on FTA tv for their supporters and sponsors either - and the teams you rubbish like Melbourne, St Kilda and the Bulldogs are also complaining about their allocated timeslots.

 

[sherb]

The entire competition isnt trying for admission. .

Thats because Tasmania is the only one trying to get in to the competition. I dont need to justify a business case for entry for teams that are already in the competition.

It would fit your agenda, but has nothing to do with Tasmania joining the competition.

I want all teams to stay. I want a tasmanian side. I dont believe that the two are mutually exclusive and I have doubts over its viability. Thats it.

So "it's a business' for clubs wanting to join but "it's not a business" for sides already in. Gotcha.

As for the bolded - well yeah, you have said that before....................................................

 

[The_Wookie]

So "it's a business' for clubs wanting to join but "it's not a business" for sides already in. Gotcha.

As for the bolded - well yeah, you have said that before....................................................

Im not certain how you dont get this. Theres no business case to be presented for teams already in the competition - they arent trying to get in again. There is a need for a Tasmanian side to present a business case, just as there was a GWS and Gold coast business case.

Finally, you can question whatever you like, just like your language doesnt reflect the "I want all teams to stay" crap.

 

[deltablues]

Im not certain how you dont get this. Theres no business case to be presented for teams already in the competition - they arent trying to get in again. There is a need for a Tasmanian side to present a business case, just as there was a GWS and Gold coast business case.

Finally, you can question whatever you like, just like your language doesnt reflect the "I want all teams to stay" crap.

Re the bolded - I get where you are coming from, but your comment is misfounded: there is always a "business case" for existing teams. I'm sure I don't need to expand on that to you. And as part of that "case", some existing teams are subsidised by the AFL.

This is an example of the AFL's double standards (or more charitably - current policy and business plan) in the context of a Tas team, which many pro-Tas posters have raised.