Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

[Chief]

---

GO TO PART 2 of this thread:

Tasmania - Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5 (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5.1226653/ Was going to draft up a Summary but this is pretty good...

www.bigfooty.com

---

 

[Cubs2Lions]

If Tasmania did enter, the Split would be 9 teams from Melbourne and 10 teams outside.

Geelong hate home playing games at the G and on certain issues would side with the non Victorian teams.

The power base of the Melbourne clubs would be broken.

Interesting that Geelong like the federal politics would decide power.

Bring in a Canberra team and the power game is totally over.

And we can then celebrate in joy and happiness that the Vic Bias of the league would disappear forever

What a day that would be for us interstate supporters

 

[Colonial]

10 vics 10 non vics.

No way the Clubs in Victoria want that.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

10 vics 10 non vics.

No way the Clubs in Victoria want that.

But us interstate clubs/supporters want it so who cares what they think

 

[Colonial]

But us interstate clubs/supporters want it so who cares what they think

As they have the power right now we all do care.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

As they have the power right now we all do care.

Well then we will just make our own competition up to rival them and then they can play with their shorten quarters and all that.

Then we can show which competition would be on top.

Something like this would be alright

Adelaide
Brisbane
Canberra
Darwin
Fremantle
Gold Coast
Newcastle
Port Adelaide
Sydney
Tasmania
West Coast
Western Sydney

 

[Colonial]

Well then we will just make our own competition up to rival them and then they can play with their shorten quarters and all that.

Then we can show which competition would be on top

Without the big 4 it’s a fools errand.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Without the big 4 it’s a fools errand.

Yeah I know, it would be a fun alternative though if that ever happened.

We can only dream for now of that reality happening.

 

[eastfreo75]

Well then we will just make our own competition up to rival them and then they can play with their shorten quarters and all that.

Then we can show which competition would be on top.

Something like this would be alright

Adelaide
Brisbane
Canberra
Fremantle
Gold Coast
Port Adelaide
Sydney
Tasmania
West Coast
Western Sydney

Send an email to Twiggy Forrest.

18 game season and each time has twice.

 

[eastfreo75]

10 vics 10 non vics.

No way the Clubs in Victoria want that.

They have never wanted interstate teams.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

They have never wanted interstate teams.

That's why I so want a Tasmania and Canberra team so desperately in the next 5-10 years so the VIC bias can disappear forever.

 

[Carringbush2010]

100% agree.

Would really want the AFL to stop being so VIC Centric like it is now and care about clubs outside that Victorian bubble like our teams for example.

Hopefully the more interstate teams that the AFL creates, the less VIC bias the competition would be and the more fairer the competition & league would be.

It might be an subconscious but the Victorian teams know that a new non Victorian team dilutes their power base.

I believes its a cognitive bias that AFL is stopping a very viable application for a team in Tasmania.

It's shame because growing the game long term will help Victorian football.

I think that's the only reason why they are stopping Tasmania joining cause it "dilutes their power" in the competition on the field but also off the field.

That's why the more teams interstate being created, the less bias we will have in this competition & league cause I don't think any VIC teams will merge or relocate despite my wishing.

Good to see the conspiracy theory is still alive.

Ask yourselves if it were true that HQ does have a conscious bias toward vic clubs purely out of favour then why did HQ bring in expansion clubs in RL territory? I'll add that HQ is made up of board members and a CEO that are not from Victoria, maybe because they want to expand the code nationally?

It's not a power struggle and a 'we hate non vic' chip on the shoulder scenario, that is just rubbish. The landscape of the league is dictated by market, that's it.

I'm not suggesting that HQ are doing the 'national' thing efficiently, far from it, but let's not pretend there is a non vic hate thing going on at HQ. That has conspiracy theory written all over it.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Good to see the conspiracy theory is still alive.

Ask yourselves if it were true that HQ does have a conscious bias toward vic clubs purely out of favour then why did HQ bring in expansion clubs in RL territory? I'll add that HQ is made up of board members and a CEO that are not from Victoria, maybe because they want to expand the code nationally?

It's not a power struggle and a 'we hate non vic' chip on the shoulder scenario, that is just rubbish. The landscape of the league is dictated by market, that's it.

I'm not suggesting that HQ are doing the 'national' thing efficiently, far from it, but let's not pretend there is a non vic hate thing going on at HQ. That has conspiracy theory written all over it.

I don't hate Victorian teams at all don't get me wrong, but it's quite unfair having more than 50% of teams being from one state. If it was 50% Victorian teams 50% interstate teams I would be less whinging over it. I just wanted a fair and national competition and hopefully the AFL can provide that in the future. I understand it takes time for the league to grow.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't hate Victorian teams at all don't get me wrong, but it's quite unfair having more than 50% of teams being from one state. If it was 50% Victorian teams 50% interstate teams I would be less whinging over it. I just wanted a fair and national competition and hopefully the AFL can provide that in the future. I understand it takes time for the league to grow.

Fair? When was the last time this so called national comp fair? Never, maybe ask yourself why that is.

Clue, it's not a chip on the shoulder bias, if it were gws and gc would not exist, in fact it'd still be the vfl with a couple of other teams wc and bris.

Blunt reality: life is not fair, and no competition in the whole world is totally equitable - that is impossible. You need to look at this more realistically, conspiracy theory like intentional vic bias is fantasy bs.

You'd have better credit if you didn't believe in it or this fantasy that this comp can be completely fair, market forces and geography alone ensures inequity.

 

[eastfreo75]

Good to see the conspiracy theory is still alive.

Ask yourselves if it were true that HQ does have a conscious bias toward vic clubs purely out of favour then why did HQ bring in expansion clubs in RL territory? I'll add that HQ is made up of board members and a CEO that are not from Victoria, maybe because they want to expand the code nationally?

It's not a power struggle and a 'we hate non vic' chip on the shoulder scenario, that is just rubbish. The landscape of the league is dictated by market, that's it.

I'm not suggesting that HQ are doing the 'national' thing efficiently, far from it, but let's not pretend there is a non vic hate thing going on at HQ. That has conspiracy theory written all over it.

Think about it.

The AFL clubs can voted out the commission.

Victoria have 10 votes vs 8 (possibility 6) votes.

Non Victorian fans say their is an Victorian bias and Victorian fans say their isn't an Victoria bias. Interesting, you say that cognitive bias is a conspiracy theory.

Victorians don't have an cognitive bias but non Victorian teams do?

You ask any Victorians of they wanted West Coast to entered the VFL in 1987 and they would have said no. GWS and Gold Coast get constantly bagged by the Victorian media for coming into the competition.

We are all biased but the Vics have more the votes.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Think about it.

The AFL clubs can voted out the commission.

Victoria have 10 votes vs 8 (possibility 6) votes.

Non Victorian fans say their is an Victorian bias and Victorian fans say their isn't an Victoria bias. Interesting, you say that cognitive bias is a conspiracy theory.

Victorians don't have an cognitive bias but non Victorian teams do?

You ask any Victorians of they wanted West Coast to entered the VFL in 1987 and they would have said no. GWS and Gold Coast get constantly bagged by the Victorian media for coming into the competition.

We are all biased but the Vics have more the votes.

Exactly, and that's what we are saying that when Tasmania and Canberra join the league it would be 50% voting on Victorian side & 50% voting on Interstate side.

 

[eastfreo75]

Fair? When was the last time this so called national comp fair? Never, maybe ask yourself why that is.

Clue, it's not a chip on the shoulder bias, if it were gws and gc would not exist, in fact it'd still be the vfl with a couple of other teams wc and bris.

Blunt reality: life is not fair, and no competition in the whole world is totally equitable - that is impossible. You need to look at this more realistically, conspiracy theory like intentional vic bias is fantasy bs.

You'd have better credit if you didn't believe in it or this fantasy that this comp can be completely fair, market forces and geography alone ensures inequity.

I get your point about fairness and the mighty dollar.

My point is growing the game should be the number one aim.

Indiviuals and groups like to keep their power base.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Re Read the article, it has the conversion rates between fans and memberships. Swans have a poor conversion rate in terms of memberships and attendance which is actually what you are saying. My point is that a third Sydney team would massive struggle for fans.

I was wondering why you were using these figures to measure the difference in support between the WA clubs when non-financial supporters don't really matter.

Any team say based in either the Northern or Eastern region of Perth would be luck to get a 50/50 split with Fremantle or West Coast.

To begin with, sure. But when people advocate WA3, they're not looking at 4 years down the track, they're looking at 40 years down the track.

By the way, the highest percentage of Dockers fans in an area is in Carine which is in the mid North.

Interesting, do you have a source for this? I'd like to read more.

Eagles due to the salary cap can't get better on the field, they have $90m in the bank. They could go to $200m but it wouldn't help on the field.

That's true, but do you think it's good for the competition if one team is incredibly powerful financially compared to the rest? In Melbourne at least the big four/five have each other to check their influence.

A third team in Perth wouldn't even touch the sides on the West Coast's strength. The only team it would affect would be the Dockers and then the AFL would have to financially assist Fremantle to stay afloat plus support the new team.

How would that be the case if the team was based as far as possible from Freo's main support areas?

A third team only would constrain the Dockers which is the AFL is already doing with fixtures and with less funding than the bigger Melbourne Clubs.

If that's the case, Fremantle must be doing very well financially compared to most clubs and could withstand a minor hit to their support base, so long as it affected the Eagles more.

If North Melbourne lost the Tassie deal that would have a massive impact. Yes, at the moment the Roos are solid off the field.

Tassie isn't the only place a club can sell games to.

 

[eastfreo75]

Exactly, and that's what we are saying that when Tasmania and Canberra join the league it would be 50% voting on Victorian side & 50% voting on Interstate side.

That's why Tasmania will never will get a team.

Nothing to do with logic or rational calculation.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I don't hate Victorian teams at all don't get me wrong, but it's quite unfair having more than 50% of teams being from one state. If it was 50% Victorian teams 50% interstate teams I would be less whinging over it. I just wanted a fair and national competition and hopefully the AFL can provide that in the future. I understand it takes time for the league to grow.

More than 50% of club members and 50% of drafted players are from Victoria though. It seems fair that they have the lion's share of clubs.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Like EastFreo75 quoted Johnny:

If Tasmania gets a team in the next 5 years, North & GWS should play 3 games in Canberra resulting in 6 games per season in the capital and that grow the game in the future for that territory to have a team in the next 10-15 years.

That would be alright.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Think about it.

The AFL clubs can voted out the commission.

Victoria have 10 votes vs 8 (possibility 6) votes.

Non Victorian fans say their is an Victorian bias and Victorian fans say their isn't an Victoria bias. Interesting, you say that cognitive bias is a conspiracy theory.

Victorians don't have an cognitive bias but non Victorian teams do?

You ask any Victorians of they wanted West Coast to entered the VFL in 1987 and they would have said no. GWS and Gold Coast get constantly bagged by the Victorian media for coming into the competition.

We are all biased but the Vics have more the votes.

Hang on, I thought this theory was that HQ being intentionally biased not the fan base. Which is what your post I replied to alluded to.

I stated that HQ does not have an intentional bias against non vic, never said anything about the vic clubs or vic fans.

Of course vic fans want things vic, how dare they?!!! Think about that, maybe that's the market dictating things? Seeing how that market is more than half of the whole market.

Can you see the light bulb now? This is not an intentional bias from HQ, just coz the market dictates the landscape that does not mean that HQ have an intentional chip on the shoulder - that is ludicrous conspiracy theory right there.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Like EastFreo75 quoted Johnny:

If Tasmania gets a team in the next 5 years, North & GWS should play 3 games in Canberra resulting in 6 games per season in the capital and that grow the game in the future for that territory to have a team in the next 10-15 years.

That would be alright.

Much like Hawthorn and North with Tasmania currently, the out-of-town mendicants won't want to lose their golden goose. Nor will the AFL bother buying the cow when they can get the milk so cheaply. If North are smart they'll avoid Canberra and build a support base in Albury instead where there's no real competition for eyeballs and they have historic support in the area from the days of zoning.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Much like Hawthorn and North with Tasmania currently, the out-of-town mendicants won't want to lose their golden goose. Nor will the AFL bother buying the cow when they can get the milk so cheaply. If North are smart they'll avoid Canberra and build a support base in Albury instead where there's no real competition for eyeballs and they have historic support in the area from the days of zoning.

True, it might seem unrealistic but maybe Newcastle as well could be a option.

 

[Rob]

Exactly, and that's what we are saying that when Tasmania and Canberra join the league it would be 50% voting on Victorian side & 50% voting on Interstate side.

As I understand it, the Commission decides whether to admit a new team. It could only be overturned if at least 2/3rds of clubs vote against it.

 

[eastfreo75]

I was wondering why you were using these figures to measure the difference in support between the WA clubs when non-financial supporters don't really matter.


To begin with, sure. But when people advocate WA3, they're not looking at 4 years down the track, they're looking at 40 years down the track.


Interesting, do you have a source for this? I'd like to read more.


That's true, but do you think it's good for the competition if one team is incredibly powerful financially compared to the rest? In Melbourne at least the big four/five have each other to check their influence.


How would that be the case if the team was based as far as possible from Freo's main support areas?


If that's the case, Fremantle must be doing very well financially compared to most clubs and could withstand a minor hit to their support base, so long as it affected the Eagles more.


Tassie isn't the only place a club can sell games to.

First point was making that the second club in a city always have less fans or support than the first team. Example is the LA Cippers, they have been in LA for 31 years yet the Lakers dominate them for support. Maybe, I should have used better stats. Their are no Clipper or Laker areas.

If you look at the Melbourne market, the big 4 clubs have stayed the same for years and only Hawthorn has bucked the tend and increased their percentage of the pie. Most likely being the most successful for 40 years.

A third Perth team wouldn't get the support and always be the third support club unless they did a Hawthorn.

If put a team in Joondalup which is the best option in the north, but if you put a team in Cranbourne/Pakenham, Richmond and Collingwood fans won't jump ships. Even in 40 years they wouldn't have the support. That's the same with Perth.

What you may not realise that only 50% South and East Fremantle's fans jump ship from West Coast to the Dockers and Fremantle only came into the comp 8 years after the Eagles. A new Perth team would be 33 years behind West Coast if they came in.

Sorry I couldn't find the info on Carine. The main rational for Carine being pro docker was the number of Claremont players in the first year of the dockers and Carine was in the Claremont recruiting zone at the time. Its an odd one for sure but the lines of West Coast and Fremantle areas don't exist.

Roos could sell games to Canberra or any other place. So you are right about that.

Fremantle get less funding from the AFL in a 20 year stretch than any club in the AFL, even being largely unsuccessful on the field and having very little Friday games. If a third team came in, then the AFL would have to fund us to the level of smaller Melbourne clubs and give better fixtures. AFL are quite happy to under fund Fremantle. They rather give more money to Richmond and Collingwood.

West Coast have a waiting list for full memberships and if they lost fans or memberships they have reserves. They make massive profits even with them paying massive royalties to the WAFC. The Eagles are so out in front of every AFL club.