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

[madmug]

Lol, because that worked out so well for the afl last time.

If it is actually the intent of the AFL to transplant the Awks for Norf in Tas, then it won't go well for anyone.

 

[CD Xbow]

A post Clarko succession plan would be rather easy to implement just like the pies!

Old bucks may even be available with in the next year or so as well

That one didn't age well, even if it's only six months.

 

[Matchu]

Lol, because that worked out so well for the afl last time.

If North had moved to the Gold Coast back in 2009, I dare say we would already have a AFL team based in Tasmania. We know the AFL had western Sydney in their sights for expansion back around the time they offered North the opportunity to relocate to the Gold Coast and I don't think it would have taken long for the league to realise the introduction of an 18th team would increase their TV rights deal.

The AFL didn't get the outcome they wanted back then. We know that. But you'd be foolish to think they won't try again under a new administration.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

If North had moved to the Gold Coast back in 2009, I dare say we would already have a AFL team based in Tasmania. We know the AFL had western Sydney in their sights for expansion back around the time they offered North the opportunity to relocate to the Gold Coast and I don't think it would have taken long for the league to realise the introduction of an 18th team would increase their TV rights deal.

The AFL didn't get the outcome they wanted back then. We know that. But you'd be foolish to think they won't try again under a new administration.

Lol, if they failed to get North back in 2007 under the circumstances, what hope would they have now or in the near future. North's been around for 100+ years, if Essendon and the AFL didn't kill North, nothing will.

 

[telsor]

Lol, if they failed to get North back in 2007 under the circumstances, what hope would they have now or in the near future. North's been around for 100+ years, if Essendon and the AFL didn't kill North, nothing will.

So North is safe from the AFL because the AFL will keep bailing them out?

Tell me you see the flaw in that logic.

 

[Rabman]

The time was the 90's for a team in Tasmania, i sure their were bids made during that decade that were considered and certainly unlike today we wouldn't have the against argument with the metrics that the AFL and people keep saying (corporate sponsorship, tv ratings), certainly a missed opportunity for the league.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

So North is safe from the AFL because the AFL will keep bailing them out?

Tell me you see the flaw in that logic.

Because they took funding away last time. That has and never will be an option.

 

[Matchu]

Lol, if they failed to get North back in 2007 under the circumstances, what hope would they have now or in the near future. North's been around for 100+ years, if Essendon and the AFL didn't kill North, nothing will.

We'll see what happens in a few years when Hawthorn's Launceston contract expires. The Tassie government haven't made a secret of the fact that they want one team in both cities.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We'll see what happens in a few years when Hawthorn's Launceston contract expires. The Tassie government haven't made a secret of the fact that they want one team in both cities.

AFL also wanted hawks to wrap it up last time too. This contract imo will be the last one

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

AFL also wanted hawks to wrap it up last time too. This contract imo will be the last one

It's got nothing to do with the AFL. That's up to Hawthorn and the Tasmanian government if they wish the agreement between them to continue. It's no different to Richmond's sponsorship with Jeep. At least the Hawks were able to give Tasmania some AFL football, that's more than the AFL have done.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It's got nothing to do with the AFL. That's up to Hawthorn and the Tasmanian government if they wish the agreement between them to continue. It's no different to Richmond's sponsorship with Jeep. At least the Hawks were able to give Tasmania some AFL football, that's more than the AFL have done.

wrong

AFL have 100% control over the fixture.

you can have all the agreements you want with any ground, government, or sponsor, but if the AFL refuse to schedule it there is for nothing

The details are between the hawks and tassie, but it will need final AFL approval to take effect

 

[tazaa]

LOL

You mainboard nuffies make me laugh
Like what do you think is going to happen? The AFL is just going to shut down the club and move it to Tassie?

Matchu you keep banging on about the AFL this and the AFL that but with no real substance? Your opinion matters for little until you start speaking with some fact and some conviction

You just sound like a muppet with the continual carry on mate

 

[Matchu]

LOL

You mainboard nuffies make me laugh

I wouldn't be laughing if my club had attempted to double the amount of home games they play outside of their home state in a period of less than five years.

Like what do you think is going to happen? The AFL is just going to shut down the club and move it to Tassie?

I explained what I think is going to happen on page 1.

Matchu you keep banging on about the AFL this and the AFL that but with no real substance? Your opinion matters for little until you start speaking with some fact and some conviction

You just sound like a muppet with the continual carry on mate

FACT: The AFL tried to move your club 10 years ago.

Enjoy your seven home games in Melbourne next year because it's likely to be five or less in a few years when Hawthorn leave Launceston.

 

[Dez!]

We'll see what happens in a few years when Hawthorn's Launceston contract expires. The Tassie government haven't made a secret of the fact that they want one team in both cities.

They won't ever get two teams, I highly doubt they'd ever get one.

 

[madmug]

They won't ever get two teams, I highly doubt they'd ever get one.

One team in both cities means doesn't mean 2 teams. Its games in each stadium from the one 'home' club.

More North games won't help anyone, except Norths finances perhaps. Certainly it won't inspire anyone to go. A bit of a theater crowd maybe, not much passion though.

 

[Hawkk]

They won't ever get two teams, I highly doubt they'd ever get one.

He means Hawthorn leaving Tasmania. The AFL have form given their movements in 2010 (back then James Brayshaw pushed for a 7 game colocation)

Now the AFL own Marvel Stadium pushing Hawthorn back to Melbourne and into a 6 or 7 MCG 4 / 5 Marvel Stadium split would be perfect for the AFL.

Trade North games for Hawthorn at Marvel Stadium, fix North Melbourne’s historical problems, rob Peter to pay Paul would be bang on with the AFL's equalisation mantra

 

[Rob]

Lol, if they failed to get North back in 2007 under the circumstances, what hope would they have now or in the near future. North's been around for 100+ years, if Essendon and the AFL didn't kill North, nothing will.

The AFL pay North millions extra a year in discretionary funding. If they're trying to kill them they're hiding it pretty bloody well.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The AFL pay North millions extra a year in discretionary funding. If they're trying to kill them they're hiding it pretty bloody well.

Yea, sending North to the GC wasn't an attempt at all to destroy the club. They took a shot and they failed miserably.

 

[Rob]

Yea, sending North to the GC wasn't an attempt at all to destroy the club. They took a shot and they failed miserably.

They made an offer and it was rejected. If they wanted North out after that they would have reduced financial distributions in line with many other clubs and the club would have lasted about 3 years before insolvency. Instead they remained high on the list of clubs that received additional millions. That is by far the main reason why the club still exists.
The victim narrative simply doesn't apply here.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

They made an offer and it was rejected. If they wanted North out after that they would have reduced financial distributions in line with many other clubs and the club would have lasted about 3 years before insolvency. Instead they remained high on the list of clubs that received additional millions. That is by far the main reason why the club still exists.
The victim narrative simply doesn't apply here.

Because cutting fund is a realistic option, past, present or future. Trying to ship a club off is the next best thing they could realistically do in their power and they really tried hard. It’s not a narrative if it’s a simple fact. Cutting funding to a club would set a bloody big precedent for other clubs and it exists, as a notion, in the realms of pure fantasy.

 

[Rob]

Because cutting fund is a realistic option, past, present or future. Trying to ship a club off is the next best thing they could realistically do in their power and they really tried hard. It’s not a narrative if it’s a simple fact. Cutting funding to a club would set a bloody big precedent for other clubs and it exists, as a notion, in the realms of pure fantasy.

Rubbish. Distributions go up and down to clubs all the time. They're entirely discretionary on the AFL's will. If they really held a grudge North would be gone.
If the AFL gave North the base it would simply put them in line with lots of other clubs. But about $4 million worse off than now.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Rubbish. Distributions go up and down to clubs all the time. They're entirely discretionary on the AFL's will. If they really held a grudge North would be gone.
If the AFL gave North the base it would simply put them in line with lots of other clubs. But about $4 million worse off than now.

Sure they go up and down, but enough to slowly destroy a club or to 'put them back into line'? Even you don't believe that garbage. I've only seen this threat of reducing payments from BF posters, now I wonder why that is...

The fact remains, they tried their hardest to shift North, which would have effectively killed the club and its identity. Pretty simple.

If you don't agree, that's fine, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Kwality]

Because cutting fund is a realistic option, past, present or future. Trying to ship a club off is the next best thing they could realistically do in their power and they really tried hard. It’s not a narrative if it’s a simple fact. Cutting funding to a club would set a bloody big precedent for other clubs and it exists, as a notion, in the realms of pure fantasy.

You across West Perths travails, 4 cents in the dollar
https://thewest.com.au/sport/west-p...-arrangement-to-save-west-perth-ng-b88941906z
Bit like the Saint Kilda deal back in the VFL days, biggest difference is West Perth are paying their players in full, Saints players of the day are still owed money.

Not sure how you see the support of the Tas taxpayer as promoted by the AFL.

 

[Rob]

Sure they go up and down, but enough to slowly destroy a club or to 'put them back into line'? Even you don't believe that garbage. I've only seen this threat of reducing payments from BF posters, now I wonder why that is...

The fact remains, they tried their hardest to shift North, which would have effectively killed the club and its identity. Pretty simple.

If you don't agree, that's fine, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

No worries. I just can't see any evidence at all for this claim that they 'tried their hardest'. All they did was make an offer, which was rejected. Nothing else changed.

 

[Matchu]

No surprise to see North selling another home game to Hobart for 2019. Things are progressing the way the AFL would like. Right now it's a 7-4 arrangement in favour of games in Melbourne but the league would like North to flip that in a few years.

Next move involves the Kangas overtaking Hawthorn's Launceston contract and securing 7-8 home games in Tasmania annually.