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

---

 

[fargothegreat]

Hmm, yeah nah, I'd prefer NT have their own team eventually. There's no reason why we can't have 21 teams in 30-40 years time.

Their population probably needs to at least double for the business case to stack up (based on the Tasmanian bid), and its been growing by an average of 1% over the last 10 years so that is a very long way away.

Having North play in their state like Tassie has done with North and Hawthorn in the past is a good stepping stone to one day getting their own team, but that could be half a century away.

 

[fargothegreat]

"One club boss suspected the AFL had positioned the process so that if the bid did not succeed, the clubs 'would have blood on their hands'"

Sorry AFL that's not going to work

That's absolutely true. If the bid doesn't get up it will be the fault of greedy club presidents. Everyone else is already onboard.

 

[Bjo187]

The next thing that crosses my mind with 19 teams in league soon, is if we should adopt a final 10 series , which has a lot of plusses in terms of teams in bottom half of ladder have a bit more to play for than they do with final 8 but how logistically do we find another week in the football season?
I think it already stretched the weekend we start in terms of access to venues still ending the official cricket season.
Adelaide Oval, SCG, Gabba and MCG and maybe Perth not viable a week earlier than we already start.
You need 5 weeks with a final 10 series or five weeks if you have the wildcard round weekend of 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 after the home and away season ends. That extra week of football probably means a week earlier than we already start the AFL season.

The only way I think that could be is to have Giants, Gold Coast, Geelong, Tassie and 4 teams from Docklands play home games in round one so no use of cricket venues for round one and both SA clubs start with a bye and one of Eagles or Freo on bye and the other away game in round one.
Probably able to be done but maybe not ideal start to football season. However, AFL may see it as worth it as NRL already gets a free weekend without AFL already in March. That taken away may be enough of a decider for AFL to do it.

Definitely need a top 10 finals series with 19 teams, in fact I'd like a wildcard round in the bye with 18 teams. The more clubs you keep pursuing finals for as long as possible the better for all aspects of the game 'tv, attendance, fan engagement, revenue, etc'.

 

[footyfan1978]

Definitely need a top 10 finals series with 19 teams, in fact I'd like a wildcard round in the bye with 18 teams. The more clubs you keep pursuing finals for as long as possible the better for all aspects of the game 'tv, attendance, fan engagement, revenue, etc'.

All makes sense but can that extra week in season be found?

 

[kranger]

Would this be a good summary of the Tas situation, whilst removing perceived bias etc.

Tas wants a team.

AFL is interested in a Tas team.

But, despite the new AFL teams in traditional areas of Freo and Port doing well, the AFL was possibly too optimistic with the newer teams in non-traditional areas of GC and GWS.

As a result of the offended to the AFL that is the Suns and Giants not being as successful as quickly as forecast, the AFL is a lot more hesitant about another new team, being Tasmania, despite being a traditional area.

So we currently find ourselves in a situation where the AFL (and the current teams) are setting a high bar for Tasmania to reach, to prove they won’t be the same basket case that the Suns and Giants are?

And as such everyone is currently at the negotiation table to try and make it work and to happen?

 

[Aussie in exile]

It'll happen if the AFL wants it. Every 12-15 years you could add another team and then follow up with a new team 3-5 years later. By the 2050s-60s, you'd have 24 teams. I think it's doable but we'll see.

The problem is the game can't afford another GWS or GC's

 

[Aussie in exile]

I think Canberra is definitely next in line when the time comes.

Personally I think a toned down version of Fat Ed's Tasmania joint venture proposal (no 22 home games bs because that's not fair) works much better for NT than us. Eventually, we could achieve a truly national comp with a 20th team based in Canberra and the "North Kangaroos" splitting home games between Darwin, Alice Springs and Melbourne.

After Tassie

 

[footyfan1978]

Would this be a good summary of the Tas situation, whilst removing perceived bias etc.

Tas wants a team.

AFL is interested in a Tas team.

But, despite the new AFL teams in traditional areas of Freo and Port doing well, the AFL was possibly too optimistic with the newer teams in non-traditional areas of GC and GWS.

I do not think this is right. I think the AFL knew it was a long term strategy and having a match every weekend in those states makes sense as a league. I do not think the AFL expected these clubs to take a virtual five minutes to be on sound ground. It a long term investment in the sport looking many decades ahead and a generation or two ahead. They are nothing like Port and Freo that were new clubs in football heartlands already. I only question why the second team in Queensland had to be based where it is. I always think to myself Sunshine Coast could have been an option but maybe they just could not see a specific location for a ground and Carrara was the lazier option in terms of build a ground from something that already was used for football in past.

I think once again, Tasmania is another case very different. It a traditional football area and a whole state that love the game and been taken for granted and stupid it was not done in the 1990's.

This is a course correction for the sport on something that should have been done already.

 

[sherb]

The Age’s anonymous survey of clubs has six supporting Tas as team 19, five wanting more info, four wanting a relocation and one NO. Two clubs did not reply.

Tassie, gambling, concussion and the boss: Survey reveals club views

An anonymous survey of club bosses on the key issues facing the game shows how the battle for a Tassie team could play out, where the next AFL boss should come from and the verdict on the controversial crackdown on dissent towards umpires.

www.watoday.com.au

Idiots.

 

[sherb]

Would this be a good summary of the Tas situation, whilst removing perceived bias etc.

Tas wants a team.

AFL is interested in a Tas team.

But, despite the new AFL teams in traditional areas of Freo and Port doing well, the AFL was possibly too optimistic with the newer teams in non-traditional areas of GC and GWS.

As a result of the offended to the AFL that is the Suns and Giants not being as successful as quickly as forecast, the AFL is a lot more hesitant about another new team, being Tasmania, despite being a traditional area.

So we currently find ourselves in a situation where the AFL (and the current teams) are setting a high bar for Tasmania to reach, to prove they won’t be the same basket case that the Suns and Giants are?

And as such everyone is currently at the negotiation table to try and make it work and to happen?

A traditional area is why it must be a new, startup team. Existing Tassie AFL club supporters can either switch or support their existing club alongside supporting the new venture.

It's going to take a generation for a transplanted club to work, because it is highly unlikely that existing Tassie AFL club supporters are going to support an "enemy" parading around as Tasmania. So the transplanted club is going to have to wait for all the kids to come through and support them.

 

[Engimal v3]

Push comes to shove when the teams meet.

Are you threatening to shove me

 

[Coolangatta]

Their population probably needs to at least double for the business case to stack up (based on the Tasmanian bid), and its been growing by an average of 1% over the last 10 years so that is a very long way away.

Having North play in their state like Tassie has done with North and Hawthorn in the past is a good stepping stone to one day getting their own team, but that could be half a century away.

Yeah, got no problem with North playing some home games up in Darwin, but leave them as North Melbourne. If the NT ever has their own team, it should be a new club, not a relocated Victorian club. I'd only accept a relocated Victorian club if they expand in Queensland and New South Wales because they're non-traditional areas with no strong ties to any other existing Victorian club. I'm going to be livid if they move North to Tassie, yet the Suns and Giants got their own teams. They could've gone Gold Coast Kangaroos and Western Sydney Bulldogs, and it'd still be a 16-team competition. Tassie would s**t it in if they were coming in as team 17, not team 19.

 

[Engimal v3]

No I'm not suggesting they move. Neither was Fat Ed.

My thinking is they move their Hobart home games (and possibly a couple more) to the NT, and run an academy up there. They'd still base themselves at Arden St, keep their guernsey and colours, but be known as North Kangaroos instead of North Melbourne Kangaroos.

It's pretty much the same arrangement they have with Tas currently, with the name change added to give the NT a sense of joint ownership over the team which Tassie never got, which resulted in a lot of resentment towards North down here and made it feel like they were just milking us for money and didn't really care about Tasmania.

There's a big difference between North Melbourne playing games in Tasmania for cash and North Melbourne changing their name to no longer say "North Melbourne"

 

[fargothegreat]

Would this be a good summary of the Tas situation, whilst removing perceived bias etc.

Tas wants a team.

AFL is interested in a Tas team.

But, despite the new AFL teams in traditional areas of Freo and Port doing well, the AFL was possibly too optimistic with the newer teams in non-traditional areas of GC and GWS.

As a result of the offended to the AFL that is the Suns and Giants not being as successful as quickly as forecast, the AFL is a lot more hesitant about another new team, being Tasmania, despite being a traditional area.

So we currently find ourselves in a situation where the AFL (and the current teams) are setting a high bar for Tasmania to reach, to prove they won’t be the same basket case that the Suns and Giants are?

And as such everyone is currently at the negotiation table to try and make it work and to happen?

I think this is sort of correct, but you're getting the club presidents and the AFL mixed up a bit.

The AFL are convinced on the Tassie team. It's the clubs that are looking at Gold Coast and GWS and saying they don't want a repeat. But their biggest issue is not wanting a 19th team for a number of reasons (hence the North relocation push).

The AFL's forecasted revenue for GC/GWS has been way off, which makes the clubs very cautious about trusting the business case for a Tassie team, despite the fact that the business case has been created by the Tasmanian taskforce (not the AFL), been independently reviewed by Colin Carter and then fattened up on top of this through some strong negotiating by the AFL.

 

[Rob]

The problem is the game can't afford another GWS or GC's

The game can - look at the big profits generated by quite a lot of clubs last year. The problem is that any money given to Tassie will come out of what is currently given to the clubs. Clubs will almost always vote on self interest, that's why decisions like these were taken away from the clubs and given to the Commission.

 

[fargothegreat]

There's a big difference between North Melbourne playing games in Tasmania for cash and North Melbourne changing their name to no longer say "North Melbourne"

Yeah I acknowledge this, but I don't think North can just keep selling games off to different markets in such a disingenuous manner. The North Melbourne and Hawthorn involvement in Tasmanian footy has always been self-serving and not enough was done to make the locals feel that they were truly being represented and it's left Tasmanians with the view that we want our own team or nothing at all.

I liken North Melbourne becoming North to Footscray becoming Western Bulldogs. The Dogs recognised that their home base was too small to sustain them so they widened the definition of who they represent. You might compare it to North becoming "the Kangaroos", but I think that failed because you went from representing North Melbourne to representing no one at all.

 

[fargothegreat]

The game can - look at the big profits generated by quite a lot of clubs last year. The problem is that any money given to Tassie will come out of what is currently given to the clubs. Clubs will almost always vote on self interest, that's why decisions like these were taken away from the clubs and given to the Commission.

An AFL distribution for Tasmania won't mean a smaller distribution for anyone else. The new broadcast deal will pay for it.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I just do not buy the ACT part in particular. The population just does not justify it. Places like Bendigo have a much better case. NT has too much problems of the seasons are so different and population and crowd capacity far from ideal. No, at present adding Tassie and settle on 19 for next decade and a bit is the best way forward and work out the ideal 20th licence after that. It tough enough to make Suns viable without trying to add teams from little population area of ACT and NT.

Canberra already has 500k within an hour's drive.

Canberra is 3.4 times larger than Darwin, and Canberrans have 77% more disposable income, so the Canberra market is six times bigger than Darwin.

Canberra is the only city outside of Tasmania to host multiple games every year. Whenever Darwin even hosts two games their crowd slumps.

Within Canberra, it's been heavily debated on bigfooty, but AFL seems to be more popular than NRL.

Canberra make waaay more sense than the NT. Tbh, I think a Canberra team could even be more successful than Tasmania, but I'm willing to wait until Team 20.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

If it went to 19 Teams then it would allow an 18 match H&A set up .... 9 rounds every week with a team having a bye (1st bye team could be the Premier from year before)

Every team play each other once (9 home games .... 9 away games) and then the following year they play the alternate home or away game ... as said there would have to be a bye for one team every week ... so 2 per year

Ultimately its a fair H&A set up as there are no double ups

10 teams for finals which would allow for one extra week of finals (that said 4 less H&A rounds)

In Finals - 1 & 2 rest up first week and you play the normal 8 team format for teams 3 to 10 ie: 3 plays 6 and 4 Plays 5 ... winners play 1 & 2 the following week

7 plays 10 & 8 plays 9 ... losers knocked out and winners play losers of 3 & 6 and 4 & 5

By 2nd week of finals you have the standard top 8 as 2 teams will have been knocked out

Only downer is that 1 & 2 could get a week off followed by their first finals game followed by another week off .... could be good for them as it allows rest or bad as they will have only played 1 game in 3 weeks ... that said not guaranteed 1 on 2 would win anyway

Overall less games/rounds will be played over the season (3 less) but don't think that's such a bad thing except for AFL coffers

In addition to this ..... and I know some people aren't keen .... but you could have some play off matches for draft picks

Woodenspooner gets pick 1 that is a monty but then you could have 11 playing 12 with winner getting pick 8 and loser getting pick 9 ... 13 playing 14 with winner getting pick 6 and loser getting pick 7 ... 15 v 16 with picks 4 & 5 at stake and then 17 v 18 for picks 2 & 3 ..... yes probably not necessary but would give an extra game for supporters and something to play for .... during either 1st or 2nd week of Finals

 

[fargothegreat]

If it went to 19 Teams then it would allow an 18 match H&A set up

Every team play each other once (9 home games .... 9 away games) and then the following year they play the alternate home or away game

10 teams for finals which would allow for one extra week of finals (that said 4 less H&A rounds)

In Finals - 1 & 2 rest up first week and you play the normal 8 team format for teams 3 to 10 ie: 3 plays 6 and 4 Plays 5 ... winners play 1 & 2 the following week

7 plays 10 & 8 plays 9 ... losers knocked out and winners play losers of 3 & 6 and 4 & 5

By 2nd week of finals you have the standard top 8 as 2 teams will have been knocked out

Only downer is that 1 & 2 could get a week off followed by their first finals game followed by another week off .... could be good for them as it allows rest or bad as they will have only played 1 game in 3 weeks ... that said not guaranteed 1 on 2 would win anyway

Overall less games/rounds will be played over the season (3 less) but don't think that's such a bad thing except for AFL coffers

There won't be less games because that would mean less money.

 

[Aussie in exile]

I think this is sort of correct, but you're getting the club presidents and the AFL mixed up a bit.

The AFL are convinced on the Tassie team. It's the clubs that are looking at Gold Coast and GWS and saying they don't want a repeat. But their biggest issue is not wanting a 19th team for a number of reasons (hence the North relocation push).

The AFL's forecasted revenue for GC/GWS has been way off, which makes the clubs very cautious about trusting the business case for a Tassie team, despite the fact that the business case has been created by the Tasmanian taskforce (not the AFL), been independently reviewed by Colin Carter and then fattened up on top of this through some strong negotiating by the AFL.

I think them forecasts were said by Fat Andy to jusity his ego in putting them into the comp.

 

[Coolangatta]

If it went to 19 Teams then it would allow an 18 match H&A set up

Every team play each other once (9 home games .... 9 away games) and then the following year they play the alternate home or away game

10 teams for finals which would allow for one extra week of finals (that said 4 less H&A rounds)

In Finals - 1 & 2 rest up first week and you play the normal 8 team format for teams 3 to 10 ie: 3 plays 6 and 4 Plays 5 ... winners play 1 & 2 the following week

7 plays 10 & 8 plays 9 ... losers knocked out and winners play losers of 3 & 6 and 4 & 5

By 2nd week of finals you have the standard top 8 as 2 teams will have been knocked out

Only downer is that 1 & 2 could get a week off followed by their first finals game followed by another week off .... could be good for them as it allows rest or bad as they will have only played 1 game in 3 weeks ... that said not guaranteed 1 on 2 would win anyway

Overall less games/rounds will be played over the season (3 less) but don't think that's such a bad thing except for AFL coffers

Every team playing 18 H & A instead of 22? Nah, it won't happen. I guarantee you that if Tassie comes in as team 19 (my spider-sense tells me they will because the AFL knows it's the people's choice unless you're a diehard VFL nut), they'll stick with 22 H & A games per team.

And then when we hit 24 teams one day (we will, you watch), that's when I think they'll consider two divisions of 12 teams with every team playing each other twice. You'd take the top 12 from the previous season, and that's your premier division, and then the bottom 11 + the new expansion team as your second division.

Then eventually, they'll add new teams and start them out in a third division. People say there'll never be more than 20 teams or that there won't even be a 19th team, but they're kidding themselves. You've got reps in Mandurah and Joondalup pushing for a team in the future, another one in SA, a Nth Qld team, etc.

There'll be more expansion where the money, growth, and potential are there.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Re: going from 22 match H&A season to 18 matches + an extra finals week ... so 3 less weekends in the year ..... I think the AFL really have to seriously consider player welfare and also that the season is already massively long .... NFL play 17 H&A rounds ..... as it is the system is already unfair with the double ups and the shorter season might engage supporters to turn up more knowing there are less games to attend .... so 4 less H&A rounds but 1 more finals round and some extra playoff draft games .... I mean how much are the AFL really going to lose out financially??

 

[Hodgey 15]

I think the big thing for me is that AFL sincerely want a Tassie team. That for me is a game changer.
As long as we have the weight of the AFL's will behind this, I think a Tassie team has a very good chance.

 

[Coolangatta]

Re: going from 22 match H&A season to 18 matches + an extra finals week ... so 3 less weekends in the year ..... I think the AFL really have to seriously consider player welfare and also that the season is already massively long .... NFL play 17 H&A rounds ..... as it is the system is already unfair with the double ups and the shorter season might engage supporters to turn up more knowing there are less games to attend .... so 4 less H&A rounds but 1 more finals round and some extra playoff draft games .... I mean how much are the AFL really going to lose out financially??

I don't know but I don't see them ever going back from 22 rounds.