Apple Isle Showdown: Tas Govt threatens to end Hawks, North deals if no plan for 19th side

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rich01

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
12,260
12,818
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Are they breaching the terms of their licence with 'poor attendances' and 'poor results'?

How would the AFL bring this about?
The AFL wouldn’t have to ‘bring anything about.’

If the club lost $4-5m in revenue through their tassie arrangement, they are suddenly in a financial hole. Poor performance could lead to a drop in already average attendances and membership, decreasing revenue even further.

I’m not sure the AFL is beholden to financially prop clubs up.
 
The AFL wouldn’t have to ‘bring anything about.’

If the club lost $4-5m in revenue through their tassie arrangement, they are suddenly in a financial hole. Poor performance could lead to a drop in already average attendances and membership, decreasing revenue even further.

I’m not sure the AFL is beholden to financially prop clubs up.

Dumping a club because you wont 'prop it up' (while propping other clubs up at the same time) and replacing it with a club that by it's own sales brochure would likely require significant propping up forever would lead to legal action.

The AFL would likely lose that BTW.
 
Are they breaching the terms of their licence with 'poor attendances' and 'poor results'?

How would the AFL bring this about?

Cut off $s support like they did to Fitzroy and South.
 
Dumping a club because you wont 'prop it up' (while propping other clubs up at the same time) and replacing it with a club that by it's own sales brochure would likely require significant propping up forever would lead to legal action.

The AFL would likely lose that BTW.

depends if they are solvent.
 

Rich01

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
12,260
12,818
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Dumping a club because you wont 'prop it up' (while propping other clubs up at the same time) and replacing it with a club that by it's own sales brochure would likely require significant propping up forever would lead to legal action.

The AFL would likely lose that BTW.
I’m not saying that it’s ethical, but this is the AFL we are talking about.

The AFL would find a loophole if a club becomes insolvent. If that was what they wanted to do.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The AFL wouldn’t have to ‘bring anything about.’

If the club lost $4-5m in revenue through their tassie arrangement, they are suddenly in a financial hole. Poor performance could lead to a drop in already average attendances and membership, decreasing revenue even further.

I’m not sure the AFL is beholden to financially prop clubs up.

The AFL props up a number of clubs, many of whom have more debt than North. North will find more revenue if the Tasmanian arrangement is discontinued.
 

big_e

Existential crisis management consultant
Apr 28, 2008
12,558
38,503
Back Pocket
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
I’m not saying that it’s ethical, but this is the AFL we are talking about.

The AFL would find a loophole if a club becomes insolvent. If that was what they wanted to do.
No AFL club is anywhere near insolvency. And the AFL pretty much bailed out Port when they were going downhill a decade or so ago.

The club nearest to it now is St Kilda, and even they are miles away from being in real trouble.
 
Romantic bullshit.
Better move someone else to Darwin as well and prop up 2 clubs

How we have a dusty (less) opp shop in Arden St that few visit part of a national comp is a mystery.
 
No AFL club is anywhere near insolvency. And the AFL pretty much bailed out Port when they were going downhill a decade or so ago.

The club nearest to it now is St Kilda, and even they are miles away from being in real trouble.
Did they *!
Port fought tooth and nail to get out of the arrangement the SANFL and AFL put them in at West Lakes, literally hamstring them to ensure they wouldn’t be better than the Crows and to milk them for the SANFL.
They had to get to Adelaide Oval to do it and STILL the stadium deal isn’t as sweet as the Marvel one. Port and the Crows still pay for the SANFL to exist.

Port are a 50/60k membership club with 4ok home attendances against interstate clubs (not those double home team games the Vics get), something North will never be.

If North had been subject to similar arrangements they’d already be the GC Roos.

The constant attempts to deflect how s**t you are onto other clubs is what is losing the Kangaroos sympathy and will eventually lose them the battle for survival.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Did they fu**!
Port fought tooth and nail to get out of the arrangement the SANFL and AFL put them in at West Lakes, literally hamstring them to ensure they wouldn’t be better than the Crows and to milk them for the SANFL.
They had to get to Adelaide Oval to do it and STILL the stadium deal isn’t as sweet as the Marvel one. Port and the Crows still pay for the SANFL to exist.

by the time 2011 rolled around the league were already well on their way to forcing the Port license off the SANFL, and this included matches at Adelaide Oval without the redevelopment. Ports finances werent great for a variety of reasons, and the AFL loaned money to the SANFL to grant to Port Adelaide - money the SANFL paid off before any arrangement could be signed at Adelaide Oval that gave the AFL any leverage over them.

The fact that the SANFL were handed control of a stadium after that West lakes thing is a travesty.
 

Rich01

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
12,260
12,818
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
No AFL club is anywhere near insolvency. And the AFL pretty much bailed out Port when they were going downhill a decade or so ago.

The club nearest to it now is St Kilda, and even they are miles away from being in real trouble.
Where do north get the $5m annually from when Tas pull the pin after their current lucrative deal?
 

Rich01

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
12,260
12,818
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Where did Richmond get the million bucks they lost after they stopped selling games to Cairns?
Significant increase in membership from 2014 onwards. And Jeep came on board as a major sponsor as the result of the membership increase and the team playing finals.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to North’s current predicament?
 

big_e

Existential crisis management consultant
Apr 28, 2008
12,558
38,503
Back Pocket
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
Significant increase in membership from 2014 onwards. And Jeep came on board as a major sponsor as the result of the membership increase and the team playing finals.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to North’s current predicament?
Maybe we'll make more money from memberships from our Melbourne supporters? Or maybe we can get a new sponsor or two? Maybe better on field performance in a year or two might also help?

Like, it's not that hard to figure out where North can make some of that money.

In a broader sense, I think selling games and constantly being spoken of as a relocation candidate massively hurts our brand. It makes sponsors less likely to sponsor, and those that do spend less. Partly because you are physically getting in front of fewer people at Hobart than you are at Docklands, and partly because there's a vibe that they don't want to be associated with.

We're now debt-free, so the need for the money is reduced. If it ended tomorrow, it'd hurt a bit in year one, a bit less in year two, and so on. But there's also the "I won't buy a membership because they're a bit s**t this year" element at play, so how much of the hurt would be Tassie related would be arguable.

Bottom line is that Tasmania don't want us to relocate, we don't want to relocate either, so assuming that we stay with the current or similar arrangement for a few years until the new Tassie side comes in would work well for all parties.
 
Maybe we'll make more money from memberships from our Melbourne supporters? Or maybe we can get a new sponsor or two? Maybe better on field performance in a year or two might also help?

Like, it's not that hard to figure out where North can make some of that money.

In a broader sense, I think selling games and constantly being spoken of as a relocation candidate massively hurts our brand. It makes sponsors less likely to sponsor, and those that do spend less. Partly because you are physically getting in front of fewer people at Hobart than you are at Docklands, and partly because there's a vibe that they don't want to be associated with.

We're now debt-free, so the need for the money is reduced. If it ended tomorrow, it'd hurt a bit in year one, a bit less in year two, and so on. But there's also the "I won't buy a membership because they're a bit sh*t this year" element at play, so how much of the hurt would be Tassie related would be arguable.

Bottom line is that Tasmania don't want us to relocate, we don't want to relocate either, so assuming that we stay with the current or similar arrangement for a few years until the new Tassie side comes in would work well for all parties.


Nope Tassie no longer needs to subsidise North - simple, should not continue.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Maybe we'll make more money from memberships from our Melbourne supporters? Or maybe we can get a new sponsor or two? Maybe better on field performance in a year or two might also help?

Like, it's not that hard to figure out where North can make some of that money.

In a broader sense, I think selling games and constantly being spoken of as a relocation candidate massively hurts our brand. It makes sponsors less likely to sponsor, and those that do spend less. Partly because you are physically getting in front of fewer people at Hobart than you are at Docklands, and partly because there's a vibe that they don't want to be associated with.

We're now debt-free, so the need for the money is reduced. If it ended tomorrow, it'd hurt a bit in year one, a bit less in year two, and so on. But there's also the "I won't buy a membership because they're a bit sh*t this year" element at play, so how much of the hurt would be Tassie related would be arguable.

Bottom line is that Tasmania don't want us to relocate, we don't want to relocate either, so assuming that we stay with the current or similar arrangement for a few years until the new Tassie side comes in would work well for all parties.

I think it entirely possible if a Tasteam eventuates, that the Hawks/North thing continues.

If not, I see North going & some hard bargaining over the Hawks contract. Maybe liking it to more games against Melbourne based clubs, or less money.
Nope Tassie no longer needs to subsidise North - simple, should not continue.

Oh I agree. I'm just looking at the political possibilities& footy & the deals that might be made. But who knows. Its all guess work until we find out what such deals may or may not be be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back