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

[threesixpio]

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.

You hope hope

 

[madmug]

You hope hope

Kennett hopes not.

 

[Matchu]

Half the number of teams but

Nope. This year will see eight AFL teams travel to Tasmania. A full-time Tasmanian team would mean 12 different AFL teams would play in the Apple Isle each year. A 50% increase in the amount of teams visiting Tassie each year.

 

[madmug]

Nope. This year will see eight AFL teams travel to Tasmania. A full-time Tasmanian team would mean 12 different AFL teams would play in the Apple Isle each year. A 50% increase in the amount of teams visiting Tassie each year.

You don't really think you had to explain that to him did you?

 

[telsor]

Some BF posters aren't great with mathematics so I thought I'd save him the trouble.

If you're having a go at someone about their maths skills, it would pay to get yours right.

7 games, 2 hosts, 7 visitors, no overlap, would mean 9 AFL teams traveling to Tas.


That said, it doesn't really matter how many teams visit, and what money they bring into Tas. If you want the AFL to decide to add another AFL team, a matter that is entirely up to the AFL then you need to show why it's a good decision FOR THE AFL. A point that is routinely ignored by the Tas team advocates because the math clearly doesn't add up to support that argument, and with every year that passes, the numbers just keep getting worse.

 

[Matchu]

If you're having a go at someone about their maths skills, it would pay to get yours right.

7 games, 2 hosts, 7 visitors, no overlap, would mean 9 AFL teams traveling to Tas.


That said, it doesn't really matter how many teams visit, and what money they bring into Tas. If you want the AFL to decide to add another AFL team, a matter that is entirely up to the AFL then you need to show why it's a good decision FOR THE AFL. A point that is routinely ignored by the Tas team advocates because the math clearly doesn't add up to support that argument, and with every year that passes, the numbers just keep getting worse.

There have been overlaps in the past (ie North playing Hawthorn in Launceston) but I take your point. The main takeaway from my post was that there would more games in Tasmania, not less. The poster I quoted somehow thought there would be half the amount of teams travelling to Tasmania if they were to gain their own full-time team.

You're right though. A hypothetical Tasmanian bid team needs to find ways to convince the AFL as to why it would be beneficial for the AFL to let them in, not why it's beneficial for the state of Tasmania. It's pretty damn obvious it would be beneficial for the state of Tasmania to have their own team hosting 11 home games a year.

 

[NoobPie]

There have been overlaps in the past (ie North playing Hawthorn in Launceston) but I take your point. The main takeaway from my post was that there would more games in Tasmania, not less. The poster I quoted somehow thought there would be half the amount of teams travelling to Tasmania if they were to gain their own full-time team.

You're right though. A hypothetical Tasmanian bid team needs to find ways to convince the AFL as to why it would be beneficial for the AFL to let them in, not why it's beneficial for the state of Tasmania. It's pretty damn obvious it would be beneficial for the state of Tasmania to have their own team hosting 11 home games a year.

I think there is a compelling moral case for the AFL to work towards a standalone Tasmanian team, there is an economic and social case for Tasmania to have a team, but Telsor is certainly right that there is not a straight up commercial case for the AFL give them one.

The upshot of this is that the state of Tasmania should at least absorb pretty much absolutely the revenue risk of the team but at the same time have no control over it.

 

[telsor]

I think there is a compelling moral case for the AFL to work towards a standalone Tasmanian team, there is an economic and social case for Tasmania to have a team, but Telsor is certainly right that there is not a straight up commercial case for the AFL give them one.

The upshot of this is that the state of Tasmania should at least absorb pretty much absolutely the revenue risk of the team but at the same time have no control over it.

I would imagine that if the AFL received a guarantee from the state of Tasmania that they would underwrite the revenue of a Tas club to ensure that it was at least in the top 2/3rds of clubs (for example), that would probably go a long way towards convincing the AFL to give them a club.

I'd be shocked if that would ever happen but it would smooth over a lot of doubts/fears the AFL might have about the potential risk to them from taking in an 'economically marginal' team.



As for the government having an interest in the club but no control over it, that would hardly be unprecedented....The WA government, in effect, owns the WCE & Freo through the WAFC which is nominally a government body, although I highly doubt any real control is ever invoked. The Vic government also has a significant theoretical interest in the MCG but again, is largely hands off in practice. (I imagine the situation in SA with AO is similar).

 

[NoobPie]

I would imagine that if the AFL received a guarantee from the state of Tasmania that they would underwrite the revenue of a Tas club to ensure that it was at least in the top 2/3rds of clubs (for example), that would probably go a long way towards convincing the AFL to give them a club.

I'd be shocked if that would ever happen but it would smooth over a lot of doubts/fears the AFL might have about the potential risk to them from taking in an 'economically marginal' team.

I don't think the team would be economically marginal...but it would commercially marginal for the AFL as you've identified.

I think more likely rather than being exposed to the risk per se, the government would perhaps be required to commit to a long term contract with peppercorn rents to the two stadiums and an annual funding commitment (perhaps through the tourism body to give it some credibility)

As for the government having an interest in the club but no control over it, that would hardly be unprecedented....The WA government, in effect, owns the WCE & Freo through the WAFC which is nominally a government body, although I highly doubt any real control is ever invoked. The Vic government also has a significant theoretical interest in the MCG but again, is largely hands off in practice. (I imagine the situation in SA with AO is similar).

Is this true? I've hear this before around here but can find nothing online confirming it. I thought the WAFC was an independent commission along the lines of the AFL with the WAFL clubs (and perhaps WCE and freo) being its members. It seems to me that recent negotiations around Perth Stadium did not have the appearance of a negotiation between a government and a government body.

 

[telsor]

I don't think the team would be economically marginal...but it would commercially marginal for the AFL as you've identified.

I think more likely rather than being exposed to the risk per se, the government would perhaps be required to commit to a long term contract with peppercorn rents to the two stadiums and an annual funding commitment (perhaps through the tourism body to give it some credibility)

Not sure what distinction you're drawing between economically and commercially marginal.

I would imagine that what the AFL would be seeking to avoid is setting up a club that will always require considerably more than the normal distribution to operate effectively while not 'earning' much for the AFL though increased revenue (be that media rights, or them getting their slice of merch, tickets, or whatever...If they're forking out $10M/year for a club, they want at least $10M/year extra coming in because that club is there)

Is this true? I've hear this before around here but can find nothing online confirming it. I thought the WAFC was an independent commission along the lines of the AFL with the WAFL clubs (and perhaps WCE and freo) being its members. It seems to me that recent negotiations around Perth Stadium did not have the appearance of a negotiation between a government and a government body.

I wont claim to know with certainty (it's not like I have a copy of it's charter), but the WAFC was set up by the WA government to bail out the WAFL when it went under. It's 'independent' and it's commissioners aren't government appointed, but when the government sets something up like that, then at it's core is a piece of enabling legislation, which makes it, as I said, 'nominally' a government entity. (which was kinda my point...government can be behind it, without controlling it).

 

[NoobPie]

Not sure what distinction you're drawing between economically and commercially marginal.

I would imagine that what the AFL would be seeking to avoid is setting up a club that will always require considerably more than the normal distribution to operate effectively while not 'earning' much for the AFL though increased revenue (be that media rights, or them getting their slice of merch, tickets, or whatever...If they're forking out $10M/year for a club, they want at least $10M/year extra coming in because that club is there)

Destinction is between:

the commercial - crudely the overall marginal revenue versus marginal cost equation for the AFL
the economic - crudely the net economic benefit of a Tasmanian based club to the state of Tasmania

I'm pretty sold on the latter but agree with you on the former. It basically puts the onus of the Tasmanian state to make it at least commercially neutral to the AFL

I wont claim to know with certainty (it's not like I have a copy of it's charter), but the WAFC was set up by the WA government to bail out the WAFL when it went under. It's 'independent' and it's commissioners aren't government appointed, but when the government sets something up like that, then at it's core is a piece of enabling legislation, which makes it, as I said, 'nominally' a government entity. (which was kinda my point...government can be behind it, without controlling it).

Ah, OK. I'm wasn't aware of the history. I had actually looked for the "WAFC act" but couldn't find anything. I think the detail of that enabling legislation and any ongoing powers it prescribes is pretty critical though - i.e. does it give the minister for sport the power to sack commissioners etc?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

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.

Take a team like the Western Bulldogs in 2017. 11 wins, 48k members, 34k average home crowd.
$8.5 million in membership for $177 per member average, and then an additional $2 million in ticketing.

If you look at the numbers, factor in 11-game members being Hobart/Launceston only members, membership/ticketing revenue would be more like $6 million.

I've made the point before about being able to sell mid-to-lower level sponsorship that Tasmania will find more difficult, but even if we assume $10 million in sponsorship/commercial which I doubt because it's in the middle-ish tier of all AFL clubs, there's still a big shortfall, even if I personally believe that the $10 million is really, really pushing it, because coterie/corporate packages, with less rich people living in Hobart than in mainland cities, meaning less would be bought, and the lower disposable income of Tassie folks means that a low-level sponsor getting access to a member database to tack their logo on the weekly email newsletter

$45 million - 12 AFL = 33 - 6 members/tickets = 27 - 10 sponors = $17 million more revenue needed from Tas government - which I think makes the claim "could well be significantly less" a bit silly.

All of this is not factoring in things going against Tasmania, like its slower population growth compared to the mainland.

And I'll say this again: I'm not against the idea of a Tasmania team, for numerous reasons, including boost to the Tassie economy (maybe a government investment of $17 million is worthwhile), or the fact that the AFL has an obligation beyond a national competition to be the custodian of the game, and perhaps an AFL team on the island is a good way to top-down development of football in the state in terms of grassroots and junior footy and junior development into the AFL (as a Tassie academy could be linked to the AFL team and the club get Father-Son rights to these academy players). But in terms of the revenue numbers stacking up to current AFL clubs, the case for a Tassie team isn't there. In many cases, the fact that the AFL has a high bar for the low end compared to other sports (a salary cap of $12 million compares to, say, the NBL where theirs is $1 million because they have roughly a quarter of the players per team) hurts Tassie.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Bookmarking this.. 100% this will happen.

 

[Benny78]

If the AFL had an ethics crackdown tomorrow. They'd be ****ed if they lose this and the pokie machine revenue.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If the AFL had an ethics crackdown tomorrow. They'd be ****** if they lose this and the pokie machine revenue.

Afl have an ethics crackdown...... Come on

 

[Walshawk]

Bookmarking this.. 100% this will happen.

Not quite reckon in 2023 North will be playing six games in Tas (3 + 3), 11 in Melbourne and five interstate. They won’t relocate. Crowds will continue dropping and the those that support a Tas team will say it is proof Tasmanians want their own club, and those against will say it is proof Tas can’t support a team.
In the meantime, GWS will become Western Sydney, play 11 games @ Showgrounds and Hawthorn will play three games in Canberra.

 

[Aramis]

Not quite reckon in 2023 North will be playing six games in Tas (3 + 3), 11 in Melbourne and five interstate. They won’t relocate. Crowds will continue dropping and the those that support a Tas team will say it is proof Tasmanians want their own club, and those against will say it is proof Tas can’t support a team.
In the meantime, GWS will become Western Sydney, play 11 games @ Showgrounds and Hawthorn will play three games in Canberra.

Thats some fairly specific outcomes!

 

[madmug]

Thats some fairly specific outcomes!

More like 'fairly specific suppositions'

 

[Oscarman]

For the nth x nth time, it can't be done.

View attachment 450913

What if Gil forced North to exclusively sell him 150,000 $1 memberships with full voting rights?

 

[telsor]

As an aside, and for reasons completely unrelated to Tas, AFL clubs getting out of Tas (and elsewhere) is that much more likely now that a new deal is happening with Docklands. (and even more so if there is a flow on to a better MCG deal)

A large part of the reason Vic clubs sell games is that the deal at docklands was so awful. A new deal where they get several hundred thousand a game will make selling games that much less likely (or at least, prospective venues would need to pay more).

Of course the other side of it is that MCG/Docklands would probably struggle to take all the games (99 between them if Geelong plays 11 at KP), and the AFL clearly likes the idea of having some games being played in markets that can't support their own teams to help grow the game.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

As an aside, and for reasons completely unrelated to Tas, AFL clubs getting out of Tas (and elsewhere) is that much more likely now that a new deal is happening with Docklands. (and even more so if there is a flow on to a better MCG deal)

A large part of the reason Vic clubs sell games is that the deal at docklands was so awful. A new deal where they get several hundred thousand a game will make selling games that much less likely (or at least, prospective venues would need to pay more).

Of course the other side of it is that MCG/Docklands would probably struggle to take all the games (99 between them if Geelong plays 11 at KP), and the AFL clearly likes the idea of having some games being played in markets that can't support their own teams to help grow the game.

has the afl backed down? last I heard the increases in etihad payments were being offset by reductions in compo payments

 

[telsor]

has the afl backed down? last I heard the increases in etihad payments were being offset by reductions in compo payments

Well, Carlton seems to think they're going to get a lot more.

and even if so, clubs will presumably get the compo reduction regardless, so the decision will still come down to the money clubs will make from each game.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well, Carlton seems to think they're going to get a lot more.

and even if so, clubs will presumably get the compo reduction regardless, so the decision will still come down to the money clubs will make from each game.

going back a couple of months the dogs and kangas primarily were leading the fight against the afl proposal, so it may be they are more vulnerable on the compo calcs than the blues are

 

[telsor]

going back a couple of months the dogs and kangas primarily were leading the fight against the afl proposal, so it may be they are more vulnerable on the compo calcs than the blues are

I was about to say "we'll see" but given the AFLs allergy to transparency, we probably wont.

No real announcement yet, and I doubt there will be much detail when there is....Just the AFL saying what a good and fair deal it is, and a bunch of clubs who've been told to agree with the boss or they'll cop it.

 

[tazaa]

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.

Its hilarious you think that 45,000 members are happy to lose their club lol