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

[madmug]

To some extent this is correct. After all the AFL IS the 18 clubs.



You are embellishing the situation.



These clubs would both go on existing without Tasmania's input.



Once again, the AFL IS the 18 clubs.



Stop blaming the AFL. Why can't Tasmania sell themselves? I respect your passion for your states footy representation, but when it comes to reasoning the scenario you completely fall flat on your face and resort to conspiracies.

The FACT is that Tasmania cannot currently present a compelling case to the AFL to have it's own team. Period. If it could, it would have one.



Important business decisions are not based on trivial emotions such as parochialism. In light of Tasmania being currently incapable of bringing a sustainable plan to the table, the next best option is what the Tasmanian leaders are currently employing. Bring an AFL profile of the game to the state and create profits whilst establishing the market.

Embellished what? The incomes of clubs can be looked up quite easily & many dont make the AFL's comment on $45million needed to run a club. Not my figures.

The AFL is the keeper of Australian rules football. They take on that mantle as well as manage the professional game. They are not 18 clubs. They are the management organisation FOR the 18 clubs & the AFLW clubs & the state associations.

'Your' FACT is how YOU subjectively decide it. 'The' FACT is behind closed doors & is unknown to you or I.

A compelling case is one where the politics of the decision wins. Equity, Economics, History, etc are all bit players.

Also the 'nasty word' Parochialism is exactly what makes the game run at club level. That creates the politics of football which does affect decision making at AFLHQ.

However always remember to back self interest in the race of life (footy), at least you know its trying. ( Paul Keating)

 

[madmug]

I've flown to Launceston 3-4 times to watch the Brisbane Lions play Hawthorn with 2-3 other people. Spent well over $500 per head each weekend. The local hotels in particular did very well out of us.

We've spent much, much more on going to games in Melbourne & Brisbane, than here in Tasmania. Does that cancel you out?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Embellished what? The incomes of clubs can be looked up quite easily & many dont make the AFL's comment on $45million needed to run a club. Not my figures.

The $45 million dollar figure was made in context with Tasmanias requirement.

The AFL is the keeper of Australian rules football. They take on that mantle as well as manage the professional game. They are not 18 clubs. They are the management organisation FOR the 18 clubs & the AFLW clubs & the state associations.

Disagree. Dress it up however you like. You can argue that the AFL's mission statement is broader, but I am stating the reality of the situation. We'll move on.

'Your' FACT is how YOU subjectively decide it. 'The' FACT is behind closed doors & is unknown to you or I.

I base my view on the FACT that Tasmania has been unsuccessful in attaining an AFL side. It doesn't have one. You should start acknowledging that there's possibly more at play here than an AFL conspiracy if you admit that you don't even know the details or even existence of any proposals.

Has Tasmania actually made a formal application to the AFL for a team?

A compelling case is one where the politics of the decision wins. Equity, Economics, History, etc are all bit players.

Economics is EVERYTHING! It won't get a run with the AFL if the numbers and longevity aren't compelling. You need to start living in the real world.

Also the 'nasty word' Parochialism is exactly what makes the game run at club level. That creates the politics of football which does affect decision making at AFLHQ.

it seems to be lacking in Tasmania.

However always remember to back self interest in the race of life (footy), at least you know its trying. ( Paul Keating)

What do you think the AFL are doing by not granting Tasmania a licence?

 

[Roylion]

We've spent much, much more on going to games in Melbourne & Brisbane, than here in Tasmania. Does that cancel you out?

If you want it to. I've made a substantial contribution to the Queensland economy over the past twenty years or so.

 

[madmug]

The $45 million dollar figure was made in context with Tasmanias requirement.



Disagree. Dress it up however you like. You can argue that the AFL's mission statement is broader, but I am stating the reality of the situation. We'll move on.



I base my view on the FACT that Tasmania has been unsuccessful in attaining an AFL side. It doesn't have one. You should start acknowledging that there's possibly more at play here than an AFL conspiracy if you admit that you don't even know the details or even existence of any proposals.

Has Tasmania actually made a formal application to the AFL for a team?



Economics is EVERYTHING! It won't get a run with the AFL if the numbers and longevity aren't compelling. You need to start living in the real world.



it seems to be lacking in Tasmania.



What do you think the AFL are doing by not granting Tasmania a licence?

So it doesn't matter other clubs are financially reliant on handouts.??

Read the AFL annual report & tell me its only about 18 clubs.

The 'fact' it hasn't got a side is the reason for this discussion. If all you've got is it hasn't got a team because it hasn't got a team then forget the discussion.

If economics is everything why does the AFL bother spruiking its community credentials. ANSWER IS, At the very least the AFL gets a lot of Government support. It has to be seen as giving value back to the community. Thats called POLITICS. Ignore that at your peril.

The AFL have a lot of internal considerations. balancing things is the name of the game. Its not easy being the professional game & managing the sport as a whole.

Right now we are seeing the attitude here change from the subservient. People are tied of the FIFO situation. Politicians are susceptible coming up to an election (March). The AFL want to be seen to be doing the right thing, hence its an ongoing 'battle'.

 

[Cuzz09]

Time to merge with Melbourne

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Snake_Baker]

So it doesn't matter other clubs are financially reliant on handouts.??

No.

The 'fact' it hasn't got a side is the reason for this discussion. If all you've got is it hasn't got a team because it hasn't got a team then forget the discussion.

Hey, at least i'm stating a fact. All you have is a tin foil hat.

If economics is everything why does the AFL bother spruiking its community credentials. ANSWER IS, At the very least the AFL gets a lot of Government support. It has to be seen as giving value back to the community. Thats called POLITICS. Ignore that at your peril.

That "government support" is called MONEY aka ECONOMICS.

Right now we are seeing the attitude here change from the subservient. People are tied of the FIFO situation. Politicians are susceptible coming up to an election (March). The AFL want to be seen to be doing the right thing, hence its an ongoing 'battle'.

Reality differs with you. The Tasmanian politicians currently have a choice between Hawthorn & North or NOTHING.

When you find any Tasmanian proposals for a stand alone AFL team make sure you post them.

Until then, they don't exist, and you're engaging in a pipe dream.

 

[madmug]

No.



Hey, at least i'm stating a fact. All you have is a tin foil hat.



That "government support" is called MONEY aka ECONOMICS.



Reality differs with you. The Tasmanian politicians currently have a choice between Hawthorn & North or NOTHING.

When you find any Tasmanian proposals for a stand alone AFL team make sure you post them.

Until then, they don't exist, and you're engaging in a pipe dream.

A Tassie team doesn't exist? Wow who knew.

Government support is POLITICAL. If you comprehend anything, understand Politicians pay scant regard to economics except on the macro level. Below that they spend for party political benefit, for their public image.

The AFL as much as Politicians have an extreme regard for their public image. The FIFO mess in Tasmania is worse with 2 clubs. For so many personalities to continually query what the AFL are doing in Tasmania & the public getting more persistent about why we're throwing money at 2 clubs, something will have to happen soon.

Don't worry, their are also a lot of votes in NOT supporting FIFO clubs.

Even as a footy person if it were a choice between Hawthorn, North & Nothing, I'd choose the latter.

People want a pathway, not a one way money trap. That much is becoming more evident.

 

[Dank You Steven]

You must be still upset over the 1963 then......

1989, 2008, 2013, 1987, 1991 - when it counts we win. Geelong lose. Muppet.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Don't worry, their are also a lot of votes in NOT supporting FIFO clubs.

What rubbish. If this ends up being a major election issue for Tasmania then the place is completely backward.

Even as a footy person if it were a choice between Hawthorn, North & Nothing, I'd choose the latter.

Your politicians are the ones that matter, and they don't agree.

 

[madmug]

What rubbish. If this ends up being a major election issue for Tasmania then the place is completely backward.



Your politicians are the ones that matter, and they don't agree.

FYI. We've just had one political party put the elimination of poker machines from clubs & pubs on its platform for this election. Don't you think that got some attention!! That will have State & National ramifications as time goes by. That all came from a persistent social, moral & economic argument. So don't believe that the politics of getting elected excludes any possibilities.

If one party said It'll only support local sports teams, they will win support, don't worry about that.

Cricket Tasmania has already fired a shot by complaining FIFO clubs get more than they do. That, even though CT support grass roots cricket, give national & international exposure value above that of Hawthorn & North . They also argue that they provide far better community value for taxpayers dollars. Clearly they do.

So the arguments are being had.

 

[Snake_Baker]

FYI. We've just had one political party put the elimination of poker machines from clubs & pubs on its platform for this election. Don't you think that got some attention!! That will have State & National ramifications as time goes by. That all came from a persistent social, moral & economic argument. So don't believe that the politics of getting elected excludes any possibilities.

If one party said It'll only support local sports teams, they will win support, don't worry about that.

Cricket Tasmania has already fired a shot by complaining FIFO clubs get more than they do. That, even though CT support grass roots cricket, give national & international exposure value above that of Hawthorn & North . They also argue that they provide far better community value for taxpayers dollars. Clearly they do.

So the arguments are being had.

Good luck.

Unless your politicians can convince the AFL they have a long term viable plan then all the voting in the world won't amount to a thing.

 

[threesixpio]

Thanks for your tax money, greatly appreciated

A Tasmanian Bomber. Would love him to come to the next Tassie game

 

[madmug]

Good luck.

Unless your politicians can convince the AFL they have a long term viable plan then all the voting in the world won't amount to a thing.

The AFL themselves DON'T want 2 clubs here.

Its the AFL's mess.

Something will happen. The AFL have made it known via their own Garlick report said as much. Room for one club only.

Academics like Jonathon West & economist Saul Estlake strongly argue a Tasmanian AFL club is viable for both the Social value & economic numbers.

Anyway, hopefully we'll get some sort of plan soon.

Who knows what, but both parties know this can't just keep rolling along. Government will be looking for good news to announce so both AFL & State Government will be working on something. As the numbers for Hawthorn & North dip, that will pressure the parties to move.

 

[Gavin Excell]

FYI. We've just had one political party put the elimination of poker machines from clubs & pubs on its platform for this election. Don't you think that got some attention!! That will have State & National ramifications as time goes by. That all came from a persistent social, moral & economic argument. So don't believe that the politics of getting elected excludes any possibilities.

If one party said It'll only support local sports teams, they will win support, don't worry about that.

Cricket Tasmania has already fired a shot by complaining FIFO clubs get more than they do. That, even though CT support grass roots cricket, give national & international exposure value above that of Hawthorn & North . They also argue that they provide far better community value for taxpayers dollars. Clearly they do.

So the arguments are being had.

FIFO clubs

 

[Our Game]

I was in Tassie a few days ago and surprisingly a number of locals I spoke to dont want their own AFL side as they think it wont be viable without massive government support and they didnt want millions taken out of the State budget to run a most likely unsuccessful team.

 

[Matchu]

I was in Tassie a few days ago and surprisingly a number of locals I spoke to dont want their own AFL side as they think it wont be viable without massive government support and they didnt want millions taken out of the State budget to run a most likely unsuccessful team.

Realistically, how much would the Tasmanian government need to tip in annually to keep a local team alive? 10 years ago MARS committed to a three-year major sponsorship deal worth $4 million for a hypothetical Tasmanian team. I can only assume that number would be higher in today's financial climate. As for game day revenue, the local government/s can just lower the rent in order to ensure the team makes a profit if it isn't already at an acceptable level.

I'd say there would need to be clubs built in both Hobart and Launceston that have poker machines in order to continually produce revenue year round. Then you have AFL distribution ranging between $10-20 million. So, I ask again, how much would the Tasmanian government actually have to tip in if it takes $45 million annually to run an AFL club?

 

[madmug]

I was in Tassie a few days ago and surprisingly a number of locals I spoke to dont want their own AFL side as they think it wont be viable without massive government support and they didnt want millions taken out of the State budget to run a most likely unsuccessful team.

People are so brainwashed by the BS that comes out of this. The AFL itself said you'd need $45million a year. People think the Government have to pay all of that.

Its reminiscent of the MONA venture. I watched it being built. So many people complained 'we' couldn't afford it & what a waste of money!!!! The idiots just didn't get the fact it was a private venture. Now it is a huge success & generates a massive tourist spin off. Like with the BBL, its started to benefit the North of the state. Whereas we finally got Footy in the south again, the North is starting to get cricket. So the 'political' model, supported by the AFL has finally been broken, to the benefit of all of us here.

Sp whatever millions the Government tips in will see the economic stimulus stay here in Tasmania & not flow onto Melbourne. The social benefits are massive. Just look at Geelong as an example of the social benefit, confidence, unity as well as the economic stimulus factors.

Why would it be unsuccessful? Please explain?

 

[NoobPie]

People are so brainwashed by the BS that comes out of this. The AFL itself said you'd need $45million a year. People think the Government have to pay all of that.

Its reminiscent of the MONA venture. I watched it being built. So many people complained 'we' couldn't afford it & what a waste of money!!!! The idiots just didn't get the fact it was a private venture. Now it is a huge success & generates a massive tourist spin off. Like with the BBL, its started to benefit the North of the state. Whereas we finally got Footy in the south again, the North is starting to get cricket. So the 'political' model, supported by the AFL has finally been broken, to the benefit of all of us here.

Sp whatever millions the Government tips in will see the economic stimulus stay here in Tasmania & not flow onto Melbourne. The social benefits are massive. Just look at Geelong as an example of the social benefit, confidence, unity as well as the economic stimulus factors.

Why would it be unsuccessful? Please explain?

No doubt you are right but people will still complain though (particularly those not much in to footy)

Using the $45 as a benchmark (bare in mind that GWS and North, for instance, managed to spend near the football department cap on revenues of less than $40M in 2016)...

...~$12M might be the base AFL distribution, leaving about $33M

....assuming peppercorn rents for existing two stadiums, you might be looking $10-12M for membership and ticketing

....perhaps throw in the samish for sponsorship, commercial and merchandise

So conservatively the exposure to the Tas government would be tops $10M a year, but could well be significantly less.

 

[madmug]

No doubt you are right but people will still complain though (particularly those not much in to footy)

Using the $45 as a benchmark (bare in mind that GWS and North, for instance, managed to spend near the football department cap on revenues of less than $40M in 2016)...

...~$12M might be the base AFL distribution, leaving about $33M

....assuming peppercorn rents for existing two stadiums, you might be looking $10-12M for membership and ticketing

....perhaps throw in the samish for sponsorship, commercial and merchandise

So conservatively the exposure to the Tas government would be tops $10M a year, but could well be significantly less.

Quite possible. All appears reasonably logical.

At least such a new club wouldn't be drain on AFL resources some clubs currently are.

If they try a number on us & just lumber us with some beat up part time Melbourne suburban team, then it will struggle to get anywhere with the football populace. I & my footy 'associates' wouldn't bother with it.

 

[Matchu]

No doubt you are right but people will still complain though (particularly those not much in to footy)

Using the $45 as a benchmark (bare in mind that GWS and North, for instance, managed to spend near the football department cap on revenues of less than $40M in 2016)...

...~$12M might be the base AFL distribution, leaving about $33M

....assuming peppercorn rents for existing two stadiums, you might be looking $10-12M for membership and ticketing

....perhaps throw in the samish for sponsorship, commercial and merchandise

So conservatively the exposure to the Tas government would be tops $10M a year, but could well be significantly less.

Conservative numbers indicate a $10 million investment is required from the Tasmanian government to run a club full-time. They already spend over $4 million a year on Hawthorn and so that's nearly half the required funding already. Would the state government double their investment if it meant the amount of AFL games played in Tasmania annually would double? The obvious answer is yes.

Hosting North and Hawthorn games generates an estimated $55 million into the local economies each year so you could probably argue it will likely double as well if a full-time Tasmanian team was introduced. $10 million investment = $100 million economic stimulation. Every politician in Australia would jump at the chance to make that a reality.

 

[threesixpio]

Conservative numbers indicate a $10 million investment is required from the Tasmanian government to run a club full-time. They already spend over $4 million a year on Hawthorn and so that's nearly half the required funding already. Would the state government double their investment if it meant the amount of AFL games played in Tasmania annually would double? The obvious answer is yes.

Hosting North and Hawthorn games generates an estimated $55 million into the local economies each year so you could probably argue it will likely double as well if a full-time Tasmanian team was introduced. $10 million investment = $100 million economic stimulation. Every politician in Australia would jump at the chance to make that a reality.

Half the number of teams but

 

[madmug]

Half the number of teams but

No it still takes 2 teams to play a game but.

 

[threesixpio]

No it still takes 2 teams to play a game but.

Yeah but if two teams play two other teams that’s four but

 

[madmug]

Yeah but if two teams play two other teams that’s four but

One local team playing home & away will be more games than 2 part-time FIFO clubs. More once a year interstate supporters flying in, more local support. Win win win situation. Or for Hawthorn & North, lose lose.