Moved Thread Hawthorn "sucking Tasmania dry" ... calls for them to GTFO

mopsy

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Posts
3,199
Likes
5,141
Other Teams
RICHMOND
Is the North v south rivalry that you hear re Tas overstated?
No its one big reason why a state league hasnt worked and never will.The rivalry is not just between north and south there is the N/W as well.
Its why you have two teams NM and Hawks playing at opposite ends of the state.
The vast majority of people are in the south economically that is probably where the AFL team should be based but you can bet people will not travel the length and breadth to watch a game.

The state of the game has to come first and id say it is in a parlous state down there.to me State leagues have been a miserable failure and a real impost on not only the participating clubs but wrecked the fabric of the clubs who were left behind. A vfL side which has already failed miserably and only deleted the talent pool even further from the three zones and even a team in the afl should be secondary considerations with a long term approach involved.

They need to fix what has been broken go back to what worked and had the game flourishing up till the 80's.Imo if they dont then footy will die off.
Get the game back in schools get the three regional zones thriving and make the clubs strong and viable. When and only when this happens look into the possibility of a state team in the AFL but not before.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,085
Likes
7,615
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
No its one big reason why a state league hasnt worked and never will.The rivalry is not just between north and south there is the N/W as well.
Its why you have two teams NM and Hawks playing at opposite ends of the state.
The vast majority of people are in the south economically that is probably where the AFL team should be based but you can bet people will not travel the length and breadth to watch a game.

The state of the game has to come first and id say it is in a parlous state down there.to me State leagues have been a miserable failure and a real impost on not only the participating clubs but wrecked the fabric of the clubs who were left behind. A vfL side which has already failed miserably and only deleted the talent pool even further from the three zones and even a team in the afl should be secondary considerations with a long term approach involved.

They need to fix what has been broken go back to what worked and had the game flourishing up till the 80's.Imo if they dont then footy will die off.
Get the game back in schools get the three regional zones thriving and make the clubs strong and viable. When and only when this happens look into the possibility of a state team in the AFL but not before.
Linking the state of community level football here with an AFL team is really pointless. An AFL team is a stand alone issue about running a professional club. It has a different set of criteria.

Community AF is about the level of support for it to function properly to provide an opportunity for the best kids & guys who want to play at a better standard than regional football provides.

The N v S thing is really ancient history. We have 2 teams because the politicians wanted footy in the north & cricket in the south. That fkt things here since Hawthorn started here in 15 years ago. The politically & AFL imposed isolation of Hobart from football hasn't helped the development of the game over that period. Thats ended but Hawthorn were never going to play more games. they just want money for playing in Launceston. The AFL write the fixture, not the Tasmanian football public. We didn't ask for 2 teams.

The Tas VFL team did well until it was amalgamated with North Melbourne. Well done AFLTas. Interestingly the Devils team was looking at playing in the SANFL at one stage. Their was a forum on BF about that. The AFL squashed that one so it appears.
 

ezard15

Premium Gold
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Posts
2,847
Likes
2,475
AFL Club
Essendon
That's capitalisation for you. The identification of a commercial opportunity to maximise profits and the bottom line. The AFL is also to focused on the commercial element to fund a Tasmanian club, with lower levels of population and high costs contributing to it being a tough market to negotiate.

Unless Tasmania can throw its full weight behind a new club, and garner appropriate and strong support, I fear Tasmania will simply be a FIFO state for the AFL to negotiate in order to maintain commercial
viability.
They would have twice the supporter base Melbourne does from day 1 and could possibly win a flag every 50 years.
 

ezard15

Premium Gold
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Posts
2,847
Likes
2,475
AFL Club
Essendon
Will be entertaining to see at what point North supporters stop considering their team to be "North Melbourne".

Will it be when they relocate to tas?

Or when they go from being called North Melbourne to the Tasmanian Kangaroos?

(For the die hards it will be until they are called the Tassie Devils and North supporters are banned from entering Hobart)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,085
Likes
7,615
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
The SANFL asked them to join a decade ago, but the Devils recommitted to the VFL. SANFL would have been great in hindsight from our end...
I don't think being in the SANFL would've made any difference to what happened to the Devils in the VFL.

The Devils failed in the end because it was both confused in its reason for being, & its management.

The Devils organisation was confused as to whether it was a club, or a development program. The Devils failed partly because of the mismanagement which stemmed from that. Was it a part of community? Or was it part of the AFL process? It certainly became a play thing of the AFLTas management. Questions needed to asked, but weren't until it was too late.

When it shunned community, became part of North Melbourne & management went down that subservient track, it disintegrated. I think some internal aspects also hastened that ultimate failure. The coach ended up in jail. The AFLTas CEO finally lost his job. Questions over finances, 'perhaps'.

The State league was revived. I think in an effort to cover the Devils mess & failures.

Even then, AFLTas have stuffed the management of the TSL. They are just too far up the back passage of the AFL itself. They are not sufficiently invested in Tasmanian football. Surprising thing to say, I know. But any understanding of whats gone on for 20 years will make that obvious to anyone who cares about the game, & especially if anyone has been here & talks to club people over time.

People who can think, like Richard Flanagan, they see & understand whats gone on. They see the disconnect between community, & the AFL itself, with its local office of AFLTas.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,503
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Yep, I've linked to a report from the Hobart city council before that has similar things to say about North in Hobart.

Another point from that report was that they didn't really want North playing 'big' clubs any more, because when they played Richmond down there, the ground sold out with locals and they got less tourists flying in (and thus, less money).

But as you'll find, discussion about Tasmania is largely a fact free zone....So such reports will be ignored.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
26,911
Likes
12,328
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Just for old numpty sitting in his MCC seat right sipping on his tea

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.themercury.com.au/sport/afl/top-economist-saul-eslake-says-the-numbers-stack-up-for-tasmanian-afl-side/news-story/054fb837084850a8c709436fea295c

But hey anyway old numpty would have way more credibility than Saul Eastlake or the Gemba report. Sad just really sad that someone is more concerned about keeping a home grown side out of tassie n is no threat to numpty’s side. Obviously something intruding on numpty’s private life.
Telsor has a point - if it's such a compelling case, why not release the report publicly? If it's clearly going to stand up to external scrutiny then what's the problem?

A Tasmanian economist that wants a team telling us that it's compelling is.....well..... at least questionable in terms of objectivity. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't release it other than it would get torn to shreds.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
35,639
Likes
62,203
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
Telsor has a point - if it's such a compelling case, why not release the report publicly? If it's clearly going to stand up to external scrutiny then what's the problem?

A Tasmanian economist that wants a team telling us that it's compelling is.....well..... at least questionable in terms of objectivity. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't release it other than it would get torn to shreds.
The logical conclusion is that it was a laughable presentation whereby the AFL would be left footing the bill.

I look forward to Tasmania publicly presenting a bid that is too good for the AFL to refuse, but it won't happen. They don't have the coin, and the pollies will just continue to utilise wedge politics with the AFL in order to score points for themselves.
 

Abasi

WINGED GOD
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Posts
56,594
Likes
91,018
Location
Bayside
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Spurs, Socceroos
Moderator #394
The Hawthorn Football Club contributed $28.5 million to the Tasmanian economy during the 2017 footy season, according to a new report.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also found the Hawks’ four home games at Launceston’s UTAS Stadium, and one JLT Community Series game, attracted 61,301 fans.

Of those, one in every four fans was from interstate or overseas, with the majority staying for at least one night.

Premier Will Hodgman said the report confirmed Tasmania’s partnership with the Hawks went much further than just “game-day excitement in Lonnie”.

The economic impact amounts to a return on investment of about $7.50 for every $1 we put into the deal,” he said.

“Attendance is up and fans are spending more, with an additional injection of $19.8 million into the local economy. ”

Game.Set.Match.
 

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 8, 2000
Posts
26,911
Likes
12,328
Location
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
The logical conclusion is that it was a laughable presentation whereby the AFL would be left footing the bill.
Nah, I reckon it just probably contained fairly optimistic assumptions that they don't want made public. They wouldn't have just gone to Gemba and said 'tell us what will happen', they would have provided certain assumptions about levels of support and expenses that they were to make in preparing their opinion.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
35,639
Likes
62,203
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
Nah, I reckon it just probably contained fairly optimistic assumptions that they don't want made public. They wouldn't have just gone to Gemba and said 'tell us what will happen', they would have provided certain assumptions about levels of support and expenses that they were to make in preparing their opinion.
So it was a snake oil act, and not a realistic bid? Maybe.
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Posts
3,429
Likes
3,045
Location
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
You know the difference between that report and these?

These get published.

The report that supposedly says Tas can support a side has never been seen. Surely if it was that compelling it would have been shown to all and sundry, right? Oh course, the biggest take on it though has to be that those it was meant to convince were very obviously not convinced.
The info in the Deloittes report was released. Must have been, because I saw it. Might not have been a gold-embossed leather bound book delivered to my front door, but the info released has been one of the primary drivers for those of us who argue the considered view and/or crap from negativarinos. Also worth stating that a report like this on actual stats designed to be read by the public, is more likely to cross your inbox than is a state govt commissioned Deloittes report designed to be read by the AFL and relevant stakeholders who would front the cash in the first instance...we the people get the second bite should the first lot say yes. And of course those "very obviously not convinced" are going to be one of the targets of the release of these articles describing political-business related matters - how is that even a point...?

You even answered your own criticism above when you mentioned the preference for North not to play the big teams. The state government's biggest criticism of the Hawk deal has been in the opponents drawn to play - no Collingwood or Essendon ever, Richmond only once when they were abjectly shithouse (and even then topped the all-time York Park attendance), Carlton the same...but a rotation of the lesser supported (in Tasmania and Melbourne) interstaters, headed by Freo who might as well incorporate a Tasmanian division into their membership like Hawthorn's, and the Qlders as they struggle through their nadir (couldn't get the Lions at all during the threepeat, but once they sucked, the AFL tried to use the loophole in the agreement of 2 Vics 2 interstaters per year at York Park by claiming that Brisbane were a Victorian team!). Doesn't exactly torpedo this report now, does it...?

I'd be a little sceptical that PWC would allow "bullshit" reports to freely float if there wasn't some angle of factual truth in them, too...
 

Matchu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
7,612
Likes
6,681
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Pretty obvious where this is going. North will assume Hawthorn's contract in 2021 and begin playing 7-8 home games in Tassie each season. They will also play more away games in Victoria to compensate for the loss of home games in Melbourne. From there, the AFL will work in conjunction with the Tasmanian government to produce a permanent relocation deal that's too good for the Kangas to refuse. It will likely include cash incentives, funding for first class training facilities and stadium upgrades, a full Tasmanian developmental academy mirroring the northern clubs and other appealing factors. Don't forget, North already have a women's team based in the Apple Isle. This is how I see it playing out and I think North will eventually agree to a permanent relocation to Tasmania.

The AFL haven't made a secret of the fact that they've been trying to relocate North in recent decades.
Kangaroos look to lift Tassie commitment

The progressive relocation of North Melbourne to Tasmania is advancing. The AFL will be happy to gift them a fourth home game in Hobart next year and in a few years there will be moves to assume Hawthorn's Launceston games. The sad reality is it's far more beneficial for the AFL to move North to Tassie than it is to start a new team from scratch.
 

Kangaroos4eva

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Posts
36,168
Likes
59,769
Location
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Kangaroos look to lift Tassie commitment

The progressive relocation of North Melbourne to Tasmania is advancing. The AFL will be happy to gift them a fourth home game in Hobart next year and in a few years there will be moves to assume Hawthorn's Launceston games. The sad reality is it's far more beneficial for the AFL to move North to Tassie than it is to start a new team from scratch.
Lol, because that worked out so well for the afl last time.
 
Top Bottom