Tasmania AFL Say No To Tassie Team

[deltablues]

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.

Heh, so I guess if Einstein were still with us and a Port fan you would dismiss his little theorem E= mc^2.

 

[telsor]

Cutting a Melbourne club Vs adding a Tas team...


If a Melb club is cut, some of it's members will desert the game...Let's say 10% (anecdotally, the figure was far higher for Fitzroy, so lets call that a conservative guestimate).

Even the smallest Vic club has at least 3-400,000 supporters of all levels (from the casual 'if the games on I'll watch' or diehards), so we'd be looking at losing 3-40,000 people from the game.

Would a Tas team add even that many? or the lack of a Tas team cost that many? (and remember, the real number is probably noticeably higher).

 

[Papa G]

North Footscray merger was and still is a sensible option.

 

[The_Wookie]

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.

Team do not now, nor have they ever had to present a business case to justify their existence, except during expansion. The exceptions being Fitzroy, Sydney and Brisbane (both of the latter when they were under or transitioning to/from private ownership). There are other mechanisms that determine whether a team remains in the league. JOINING IT is something else entirely, and the fact that you cant seem to recognise it truly baffles me. Its not just some teams that are subsidised by the league, technically ALL teams are.

Heh, so I guess if Einstein were still with us and a Port fan you would dismiss his little theorem E= mc^2.

Im not dismissing his argument, Im balancing it. You can want the Victorian teams to go because of financial issues, but I cant point out that there are at least two non victorian clubs that are just as bad in recent times? or that the non victorian clubs not struggling financially lately have been in Perth? And I have the double standard. Right then.

 

[sherb]

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.

Yep - double standards, wild inconsistency, hypocrisy........

It is clearly very important for the AFL to keep Tassie OUT of the mainland competition. Whatever it takes.

 

[telsor]

North Footscray merger was and still is a sensible option.

So where are you going to gain the tens of thousands of fans lost to the game through that in order to make this 'sensible option' a net positive?

 

[Papa G]

So where are you going to gain the tens of thousands of fans lost to the game through that in order to make this 'sensible option' a net positive?

According to Wookie, like Woodville-West Torrens in the sanfl, the club's would still exist. In fact, to all those who suggest merger is death, the Woodville-West Torrens template is a great example of where 2 historically weak clubs have become far stronger as a united force.

 

[The_Wookie]

According to Wookie, like Woodville-West Torrens in the sanfl, the club's would still exist. In fact, to all those who suggest merger is death, the Woodville-West Torrens template is a great example of where 2 historically weak clubs have become far stronger as a united force.

According to Wookie, Woodville-West Torrens has nothing to do with merging two modern AFL teamns. Keep pushing though champ.

 

[Roylion]

According to Wookie, like Woodville-West Torrens in the sanfl, the club's would still exist. In fact, to all those who suggest merger is death, the Woodville-West Torrens template is a great example of where 2 historically weak clubs have become far stronger as a united force.

Do they still exist? Or is the Woodville-West Torrens Eagles a new club?

What about the following mooted mergers?

Melbourne Lions / Fitzroy Demons
Fitzroy Bulldogs / Footscray Lions
North Fitzroy Kangaroos / North Melbourne Lions
Melbourne Hawks / Hawthorn Demons

 

[Papa G]

Do they still exist? Or is woodville-west Torrens a new club?

Ask Wookie. Whichever one fits his contrarain view at the time.

 

[The_Wookie]

Ask Wookie. Whichever one fits his contrarain view at the time.

Despite you and others trying to paint my line of thinking as inconsistent, it has never changed. I support a team in Tasmania, but not at the expense of other teams. Its been this way for years, and Ive not moved off that one iota.

 

[deltablues]

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?

You seem to take comments which oppose yours in a personal way. We are arguing the issues - not criticizing the person who makes them.

Team do not now, nor have they ever had to present a business case to justify their existence, except during expansion. The exceptions being Fitzroy, Sydney and Brisbane (both of the latter when they were under or transitioning to/from private ownership). There are other mechanisms that determine whether a team remains in the league. JOINING IT is something else entirely, and the fact that you cant seem to recognise it truly baffles me. Its not just some teams that are subsidised by the league, technically ALL teams are.



Im not dismissing his argument, Im balancing it. You can want the Victorian teams to go because of financial issues, but I cant point out that there are at least two non victorian clubs that are just as bad in recent times? or that the non victorian clubs not struggling financially lately have been in Perth? And I have the double standard. Right then.

I am aware of the broad range of financial issues in respect of any new AFL applicant team (past and future). For example. I mentioned possible sponsorships in an earlier post here/on another Tas team thread.

But I have also referred to policy issues - in other words I take a more holistic approach as do a number of other posters here.

Re the bolded, what I am saying is that a business case is not exclusive to a team wanting to join - it applies to all existing teams. I guess it depends on how you define "business case".
PS I myself have never said that I want any Victorian team to go at the expense of a Tas team.

 

[The_Terminator]

How did this thread get side tracked discussing Fizroy? Why do we continue flog this dead horse?

 

[sherb]

You seem to take comments which oppose yours in a personal way. We are arguing the issues - not criticizing the person who makes them.

I don't have an issue with the person, rather the wildly inconsistent arguments.

You have three posters here who give us the glib one-liner "I support a Tasmanian side", yet continually and exclusively either argue against it or argue against those who are in favour of it.

I haven't seen any of those three put ANY arguments forward in favour of their supposed support of a Tasmanian side - when challenged, the best one could do was point to a (very well written) piece on another thread - which was a NEUTRAL and historical summary of the Tasmanian situation. Not an advocacy.

I would have thought if you support a Tasmanian side, as we are told, the posting would reflect that - at least in part. But it doesn't, not at all, so please don't blame others for calling the conflicting positions (not the person) into question.

I repeat - if the posters in question DO support a Tasmanian side, give us the reasons. Sell it to us. Back up your position. If you can't or won't, the rest of us are just being treated as morons.

As it stands, one poster has disappeared from this thread, whether forced or voluntary. I can't say I blame him, this thread and "debate" has become a joke and is a waste of time for people like him and others with like views. You can't debate meaningfully in the face of wildly fluctuating positions.

May as well close it down or leave it open as a back-slapping party for those remaining.

 

[sherb]

According to Wookie, like Woodville-West Torrens in the sanfl, the club's would still exist. In fact, to all those who suggest merger is death, the Woodville-West Torrens template is a great example of where 2 historically weak clubs have become far stronger as a united force.

I can only speak from personal experience.

Although a lifelong Australian Football supporter, I also strongly supported Western Suburbs here in the NRL. They were forced into a merger with Balmain (the Tigers) as a fallout from the Super League war.

The merged entity is no stronger (it's won one flag since the merger, 2005) and is currently in a state of some unrest off the field - and has been for some time.

And from my point of view, it's just not the same as following Wests. Nothing like it at all. I guess I follow Wests Tigers, but only by default, only as saying "I have a side to support".

I have no doubt a merger between Victorian clubs would result in significant fallout and loss of support from supporters of the clubs concerned.

 

[deltablues]

I don't have an issue with the person, rather the wildly inconsistent arguments.

You have three posters here who give us the glib one-liner "I support a Tasmanian side", yet continually and exclusively either argue against it or argue against those who are in favour of it.

I haven't seen any of those three put ANY arguments forward in favour of their supposed support of a Tasmanian side - when challenged, the best one could do was point to a (very well written) piece on another thread - which was a NEUTRAL and historical summary of the Tasmanian situation. Not an advocacy.

I would have thought if you support a Tasmanian side, as we are told, the posting would reflect that - at least in part. But it doesn't, not at all, so please don't blame others for calling the conflicting positions (not the person) into question.

I repeat - if the posters in question DO support a Tasmanian side, give us the reasons. Sell it to us. Back up your position. If you can't or won't, the rest of us are just being treated as morons.

As it stands, one poster has disappeared from this thread, whether forced or voluntary. I can't say I blame him, this thread and "debate" has become a joke and is a waste of time for people like him and others with like views. You can't debate meaningfully in the face of wildly fluctuating positions.

May as well close it down or leave it open as a back-slapping party for those remaining.

I should perhaps clarify that my "personal" observation was not directed at you.

I agree with the rest of your post - it is now reminiscent of a dialogue of the deaf. I guess it will be what it will be and I am done here.

 

[sherb]

I should perhaps clarify that my "personal" observation was not directed at you.

I agree with the rest of your post - it is now reminiscent of a dialogue of the deaf. I guess it will be what it will be and I am done here.

I was aware of that - I was using your post as the basis for my comments. That's all.

And I am out of here as well. The thread and "discussion" is a joke. At least elsewhere in this forum you are confronted with stances and supporting arguments that are consistent.

 

[Papa G]

I can only speak from personal experience.

Although a lifelong Australian Football supporter, I also strongly supported Western Suburbs here in the NRL. They were forced into a merger with Balmain (the Tigers) as a fallout from the Super League war.

The merged entity is no stronger (it's won one flag since the merger, 2005) and is currently in a state of some unrest off the field - and has been for some time.

And from my point of view, it's just not the same as following Wests. Nothing like it at all. I guess I follow Wests Tigers, but only by default, only as saying "I have a side to support".

I have no doubt a merger between Victorian clubs would result in significant fallout and loss of support from supporters of the clubs concerned.

Yep. Omelette, eggs. No doubt. Depends how much you want a Tasmanian team I guess. If the feelings of 6 North Melbourne supporters is more important to you than having a Tasmanian side, support the status quo.

 

[sherb]

Yep. Omelette, eggs. No doubt. Depends how much you want a Tasmanian team I guess. If the feelings of 6 North Melbourne supporters is more important to you than having a Tasmanian side, support the status quo.

I was trying to give you a personal experience response to what mergers can be like - that's all. I actually thought it was pretty fair.

The above response in return confuses me. But I guess that falls in line with much of what has been posted in this thread to date.

 

[Roylion]

How did this thread get side tracked discussing Fizroy? Why do we continue flog this dead horse?

Because any discussion about a Tasmanian team inevitably turns to mergers (or relocations) or exits of Melbourne based clubs. And time and time again its pointed out that its very unlikely that a 'merger' will work, purely with the motivation of fitting a Tasmanian side in and keeping the competition at 18 teams.

Last time that was tried was in 1996. Which Melbourne based club was involved in that?

 

[The_Terminator]

Last time that was tried was in 1996. Which Melbourne based club was involved in that?

Nice try but I'm not biting.

 

[telsor]

Yep. Omelette, eggs. No doubt. Depends how much you want a Tasmanian team I guess. If the feelings of 6 North Melbourne supporters is more important to you than having a Tasmanian side, support the status quo.

So you still haven't responded to my question.

You admit fans will be lost, but wont even discuss how fans can/will be made up...

 

[telsor]

I was trying to give you a personal experience response to what mergers can be like - that's all. I actually thought it was pretty fair.

The above response in return confuses me. But I guess that falls in line with much of what has been posted in this thread to date.

The Tasmanian fans here don't like facts and contrary opinions based on actual experience. They tend to get in the way of their wishful thinking.

 

[Papa G]

So you still haven't responded to my question.

You admit fans will be lost, but wont even discuss how fans can/will be made up...

The Sporting Capital of the Nebula will regenerate them as Richmond fans.

 

[Engimal]

Yep. Omelette, eggs. No doubt. Depends how much you want a Tasmanian team I guess. If the feelings of 6 North Melbourne supporters is more important to you than having a Tasmanian side, support the status quo.

As a North supporter, a Tasmanian and a big supporter of a Tasmanian AFL club, I can't agree with you here. There's very little I want more than to see a Tasmanian club to come into the AFL, but not at the expense of North Melbourne or any other Vic club.

Suppose that a Tasmanian club picks up 20,000 paying members in its first year or so. It's not unreasonable to expect. There are 25,000 current members in the state. That's all good that new member have been gained, but the AFL would have just lost 40,000 North members to do so. I dunno, maybe I don't make sense but that's how I think about it.

Also, nice little insult about the '6' North supporters. Port has only 13,000 more members than North and it gets to share a state with only one other club. North shares a city with 10 other clubs and a state with 11. I wouldn't be too chirpy.