Whether they get the licence or not the club really should push for equal billing for the academy and AFLW licence.
Why should a club that has been in the market for 11 less seasons get greater 'city hall' support?
I'll believe it when I see it mate, because the cold hard economics point out that it's an absurd notion.All provisional licences have turned into AFL clubs.
Fair point, it is nice to whinge though.My hunch is that the AFL want to give North a leg up, and they consider Hawthorn to be a stabilised club.
As for what is fair, since when has the AFL ever taken what's fair in to account? Every season is grossly compromised before a ball is even bounced.
I'll believe it when I see it mate, because the cold hard economics point out that it's an absurd notion.
Never thought it's looked remotely close in the past to be honest.I want a team as much as everyone,I just don't think we should get our hopes up,because many times in the past if has looked like we would get a team by a certain time and we never have.
Better to have our better games and time slots when we play @ MCG anyway. Time to ditch Tassie and start competing with the ‘big 4’ head on.To quote Caroline Wilson...
I would like to see Hawthorn play hard ball with Tasmania
...and what is said in public and what happens behind closed doors, especially when the president of the day will no longer be control when the deal is negotiated can differ.
For example, why should Hawthorn miss out on a Tasmanian football academy and AFLW licence to a club that has been in the market for 10 less years.
If the AFL decides that a Tasmanian standalone team is not viable and no longer push a relocation why should North get preferential treatment in Tasmania?
Why have the Hobart games by and large featured higher drawing opponents and have been played in prime time (when has York Park ever got a Friday Night game?)
If Hawthorn can now make just as much if not more money from 30,000 to 50,000 games at the MCG against Fremantle (37.4k in Melb), PA (28.5k average in Melb), Carlton (51.5k average in Melb) and Brisbane (37.5k average in Melb) surely it’s time to review the terms and conditions?
Task Force reports end of 2019, I'd say a decision will be made by the start of next season. Reckon they will be awarded a provisional licence conditional that they have a 30K stadium, and a certain level of sponsorship in place.
Why reduce benefits? I assume you mean Tassie pay less sponsorship money. Why do you think that?Hawks president Jeff Kennet has indicated that they will leave Tasmania if Tassie gets a team,otherwise he wants his team to stay in the state well into the future.It will be interesting to see what happens if the AFL rules out a team for Tasmania,will they sign a new 5 year deal with the state with reduced benefits or decide to leave.
I presume they’ll continue if ‘the reduced benefits’ are greater for the club financially than playing 11 home games at the MCG and MarvelHawks president Jeff Kennet has indicated that they will leave Tasmania if Tassie gets a team,otherwise he wants his team to stay in the state well into the future.It will be interesting to see what happens if the AFL rules out a team for Tasmania,will they sign a new 5 year deal with the state with reduced benefits or decide to leave.
The government have suggested they will want more out Hawthorn if the agreement continues and they may cut the grand final bonus for example.Why reduce benefits? I assume you mean Tassie pay less sponsorship money. Why do you think that?
Personally, I think Hawthorn are gone and it will be a shame for Launceston. But thems the breaks.
Ah, I did not know that. Well, if they cut the money then, yeah, they cut the team.
The AFL taskforce has come out and said it has got off to a terrific start,I believe it has been a bit slow though,we will just need to wait and see.
If we're out of contract to Tasmania then maybe the AFL could make up the financial shortfall by paying HFC as Ambassadors of Tasmania - outside the cap?