Is Tasmanian football dead?

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: 8 teams

DuffTv said:
8 teams is the only way to go. Even in the so called glory days there were players getting a game that wern't up to it.

It would make it a boutique comp & be much more attractive for all involved be it players, sponsors and spectators (including the cameraman lol)

How on earth can players improve when you come up against a team or an opponant that are simply not up to it. The call is for the player "to get better" isn't it?

I look at a bloke like Cox from Clarence and can't help but think in a better league this guys footy would shine. The comfort zone that is TSL at the moment does nothing for a player like him. He's probably showing 75% of his ability and all the training and one off state games can't replace 18 rounds of more competitive footy.

If you were to do a survey I think you would find that's what people would want, an 8 team TSL competition, with real funding and a real roster that sees teams play at both ends of the state.

Do it properly or don't do it at all.
Click to expand...

Blind Freddy could tell you 8 teams should be the max. It was all a political exercise to start off with. Once one NW side said they wanted to play (I think it was Burnie from memory) the DPort council then wanted their team in. With the big split then happening in the old NTFL all of the Launceston sides had to be in because if one missed out there were travel implications for that side if it remained in the NTFL.

Once all of this was in train there had to be 5 sides from the south. Lauderdale were lucky to get in and only did in all likelihood because of their junior program.

And don't get me started on the roster. What a shambles. The good sides at either end of the state don't play each other often enough. And then you get the scenario where Clarence play Hobart 3 times a year. Not good for the competition, just makes it a big yawn. The uncommitted supporter of football won't go and watch a game such as this. They'll head off to the Old Scholars where there'll be a contest.
 
To be honest, if you were ranking the teams for execution, you'd put Hobart at the top of the list for demographic reasons, and then probably Devonport for annual money problems...if Hobart didn't go, it's probably because North Hobart did instead...South is a popular choice, but they have the biggest junior development programme in the north, Lauderdale in the south...a pretty short sighted decision if both got themselves regularly in the finals...the professionalism of Clarence, North Launceston, Launceston, Burnie and Glenorchy can't be questioned (by Tasmanian standards anyway), so you'd need to set some pretty strict criteria as to membership of the TSL, and then stick with it and then enforce it...

Me, I'd keep the lot and ensure they all get paid more to run their businesses, AFL dividend style. An eight team rationalisation argument is not a magical fix to anything unless it will boost support - and cutting a team never achieves that. You ask what could be done to fix Tassie footy, and it's right there. Wade harasses D for more money (if they want Tasmanians to develop their future stars for them, then they can pay a higher fee), and you fill the state league and its historical rival clubs with players who are better paid and will hang about, plus special funding for the Akers for every club to the point where they'll play the full season...

As someone said earlier, where are the kids in the street kicking the footy? Give them some heroes to emulate down at their local club and you might see some more...

An analogy - I'm a teacher of music. You can show them theory, list a few famous musos, give them history and tell them their compositions are coming along fine even if they don't get what they're doing...but sometimes you've just got to crank up the Marshall in class and bash out some A chords better than the kids can, right in front of them...that's when you see them scurrying away afterwards on a mission...
 
8 teams for mine, winding the clock back they actually wanted 12, ulverstone and crystal balled kingborough back in late 2008 when it was getting off the ground.

South launceston best junior development!!, no under 16 team dont quote the past, they used to have a good setup but could never keep them in their club because they have no history being a merged club, something has always been wrong?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bollocks. They had North Launceston over the fence, and were never a wealthy club either side of the old TFL, which was the reason for the merger in the first place. South deliberately withheld spending well into the 1990's, which cost them onfield performance, and by the time Dale Weightman got the CC job, there was a bit of infighting and moves to break away from the TFL...a typical example of an old TFL club not named North Launceston or Clarence, forced into a path which damned them either way - maintain the club at the expense of success, or spend up big and win flags at the expense of the club itself...there was often something wrong at the club, sure, but it's got nothing to do with the merger today...that's long past for players, why would teenagers care about 1986? Otherwise they've had few problems that any other club couldn't empathise with...

And what do you mean "don't quote the past"...? The only argument Hobart and North Hobart supporters are using against the exact argument you're using (rationalisation) is their history! Can't have it both ways, people - you either back the incumbents, or you revamp the structure and be prepared for horrific casualties!

Keep it as it is and get a bigger cut from Andy (and then spend it properly!). I said ten, but twelve? Why the hell not! Keep the rivalries - that's what keeps people interested...if they're going to pay for a SWL at all and have it work, it needs a healthy injection of cash from the AFL anyway, even if it was a 3 team league...
 
DuffTv said:
8 teams, please 8 teams
Click to expand...

I disagree with all on the teams. We certainly have enough population and participation to field ten teams. Although South Launceston struggled last year, they are certainly competitive this year and could play finals, with that statement i mean all three Launceston teams are competitive. Burnie are the stand out and Devonport are slowly getting better. The problem the coastal teams and southern teams have. And i'm sure the Launy clubs have the same with the NTFA, there would be at least 40-50 players running around in the SFL who could slot into SWL clubs with good pre-seasons etc. With this you would find the colts comp would get stronger as you wouldn't have u/21's running around in the seniors who weren't quite ready. Like i said, problem is these guys don't want to play at the higher level as there is no incentive. I could go on all day about this. There would be ten players running around in Latrobe's side right now who would walk straight into devonports side and make them very hard to beat at home.
 
It is difficult to tell from this distance.
As I said above, I believe ten was a mistake. I also believe that performing a cull would be a mistake. AFL Tas has put clubs through enough, and the competition needs to settle down in its current configuration. Every incumbent club should be given every opportunity in the TSL. (And that means not having AFL Tas head honchos run them down publicly at every opportunity as Hobart are going through.) If that means some clubs need some help, so be it.
If clubs start leaving, folding, etc, we're back where we were in the mid-90s.

The question is (and I don't have an answer to this without external funding coming in) how to keep clubs afloat, preferably thriving, and able to attract the best players in the state away from local football.
Clearly a cap increase would be a large part of that - but most clubs could not afford to double the salary cap (as a pure guess, Glenorchy and Clarence maybe could, but I doubt anyone else). If AFL Tas put in the money, then money for grassroots and junior footy gets impacted.
Is part of the answer to impose smaller caps n the regional competitions, in order to increase the differential between SFL/NTFL/NTFA level football and the TSL? I don't like taking money out of the game, but it may be an option to be considered (and probably rejected if no other reason than it might encourage players to go to other sports). Last time I checked I think the NTFL cap was 10k less than the TSL one. With the extra workload, and travel time which particularly impacts north-west clubs, why play TSL when for many players the reward will be less.

I would like to see the roster become truly statewide, with everyone playing everyone twice home and away, but the costs and travel times associated with that impact on finances and player attraction respectively. That might have to be a second order issue after sorting out the more basic problems.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
It is difficult to tell from this distance.
As I said above, I believe ten was a mistake. I also believe that performing a cull would be a mistake. AFL Tas has put clubs through enough, and the competition needs to settle down in its current configuration. Every incumbent club should be given every opportunity in the TSL. (And that means not having AFL Tas head honchos run them down publicly at every opportunity as Hobart are going through.) If that means some clubs need some help, so be it.
If clubs start leaving, folding, etc, we're back where we were in the mid-90s.

The question is (and I don't have an answer to this without external funding coming in) how to keep clubs afloat, preferably thriving, and able to attract the best players in the state away from local football.
Clearly a cap increase would be a large part of that - but most clubs could not afford to double the salary cap (as a pure guess, Glenorchy and Clarence maybe could, but I doubt anyone else). If AFL Tas put in the money, then money for grassroots and junior footy gets impacted.
Is part of the answer to impose smaller caps n the regional competitions, in order to increase the differential between SFL/NTFL/NTFA level football and the TSL? I don't like taking money out of the game, but it may be an option to be considered (and probably rejected if no other reason than it might encourage players to go to other sports). Last time I checked I think the NTFL cap was 10k less than the TSL one. With the extra workload, and travel time which particularly impacts north-west clubs, why play TSL when for many players the reward will be less.

I would like to see the roster become truly statewide, with everyone playing everyone twice home and away, but the costs and travel times associated with that impact on finances and player attraction respectively. That might have to be a second order issue after sorting out the more basic problems.
Click to expand...

The salary cap is a joke. As I said above, its bleeding obvious who is spending the most money on players. Clearly those who have been recruiting from other clubs or got ex AFL or Devils players are paying more than the others. Is that the most efficient & sustainable form of 'development'?
It probably is if you want to win premierships. But isnt that just what killed the competition last time 'round?
Also the travel is a problem. Those who insist on a balanced roster have forgotten what damage too much travel does to the clubs over the longer term. Players & supporters & volunteers just got jack of it.
Short memories for a lot of people, or they didnt go through the last SWL .
 
Still Kickin said:
there would be at least 40-50 players running around in the SFL who could slot into SWL clubs with good pre-seasons etc. With this you would find the colts comp would get stronger as you wouldn't have u/21's running around in the seniors who weren't quite ready. Like i said, problem is these guys don't want to play at the higher level as there is no incentive. I could go on all day about this. There would be ten players running around in Latrobe's side right now who would walk straight into devonports side and make them very hard to beat at home.
Click to expand...
I ask this question to counter your incentive arguement regarding lower league players playing TSL. What incentive is given to Scott Brennan, the olympic Rower to train 6-7 days per week, 2 x per day and work full time in the middle as a Dr, so he can get to the olympics? he isn't paid to row, he works full time and travels all over the state, country and the world, mainly at his own expense in quest of gaining olympic selection. The reason is committment. If these guys are not committed unless they are being paid then they have a big problem, no wonder they play footy if it is that simple, surely playing at a better level against better players to better ones self should be the goal not getting $150 a week in season which doesn't cover their true expenses anyway?

I know a family whom has a child who was recently selected in a major international sporting competition in Spain, to get their child there and mum, dad, brother and sister it is going to cost $23K, their child does not get paid a single cent from anyone to assist in the sport and trains around 12-14 times per week as an 18 yr old, yet he does it as it is his passion. I would suggest that these so called senior footy players at Latrobe play there because they like it there, it is in their comfort zone and it is just easier. There is no problem with that but don't think throwing money at those guys will fix the problems of the competitions quality and depth, hasn't in the past, won't in the future.
 
The way for clubs to Improve IMO is spending the limited $ in Junior development and then maybe some more coin to keep the older experience players from leaving the clubs to the SFL NTFL etc.
And a very selective recruiting from Interstate for maybe 1 -2 players each team , However history I think over the Journey for each successful recruit there a a dozen dud ones !
 
I see in todays paper that Scott Wade thinks that either North Hobart or Hobart arnt 100% committed to gaining the Tsl lisence for 2014.
I would like to know how the judge, jury and exercusioner can some out and publicly state this.
His mind is already made up and it wont matter what the clubs do, he will get his way. A proud and traditional club that is over 100 years old is going to be shafted out by 1 man, a bloody disgrace.
As for kingborough entering, You dont jump on a sinking ship do you?? so dont leave a good health competition to join something that wont be around in 5 years.

P.S I dont support either teams, I just hate seeing football clubs lose there identity.
 
Whowants2know said:
I see in todays paper that Scott Wade thinks that either North Hobart or Hobart arnt 100% committed to gaining the Tsl lisence for 2014.
I would like to know how the judge, jury and exercusioner can some out and publicly state this.
His mind is already made up and it wont matter what the clubs do, he will get his way. A proud and traditional club that is over 100 years old is going to be shafted out by 1 man, a bloody disgrace.
As for kingborough entering, You dont jump on a sinking ship do you?? so dont leave a good health competition to join something that wont be around in 5 years.

P.S I dont support either teams, I just hate seeing football clubs lose there identity.
Click to expand...

How could you be surprised? Management by decree is the AFL Tas way. When things stuff up they just blame the clubs. 121 years of NHFC or HFC history just to be errased for no real reason than they feel like doing it today. Tomorrow they will feel like doing something else.
But dont worry, they will inform us, the footy punters, by putting an announcement in the paper.
Actually the next announcement will probably be the decision to spend a million$ to reserect the Sandy Bay footy club, with Bill Sorrel to run the finances once again.
We all deserve one more chance.:D
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Whowants2know said:
I see in todays paper that Scott Wade thinks that either North Hobart or Hobart arnt 100% committed to gaining the Tsl lisence for 2014.
I would like to know how the judge, jury and exercusioner can some out and publicly state this.
His mind is already made up and it wont matter what the clubs do, he will get his way. A proud and traditional club that is over 100 years old is going to be shafted out by 1 man, a bloody disgrace.
As for kingborough entering, You dont jump on a sinking ship do you?? so dont leave a good health competition to join something that wont be around in 5 years.

P.S I dont support either teams, I just hate seeing football clubs lose there identity.
Click to expand...
How culd Hobart be 100% commited to anything when Wade and his cronies have been denigrating the club in the media ever since the TSL was formed, talking down the facilities, and by continualy questioning their future almost telling players if they want to play at a stable club they should quit Hobart. That really is not what the head of AFL Tas should be saying.

I want to know wnhat has changed in such a short time. Why is it that the league needs to create a new club and destroy an existig one when it was only a few years ago that the leagie was created. All sorts o due diligence went into ensuring the right cliubs were invited, so we were told. If things have to change so radically so soon, surely that means the process and management was a failure. Either the decision being made now is utterly wrong and contemptable, in which case AFL Tasmania management should walk, or the way the league was setup was amazinly incompetent and any remaining management of the time (virtually all of them) should walk.
They either ballsed up then or ballsed up now - or, as I believe it to be, ballsed up both times and at many points in between.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
How culd Hobart be 100% commited to anything when Wade and his cronies have been denigrating the club in the media ever since the TSL was formed, talking down the facilities, and by continualy questioning their future almost telling players if they want to play at a stable club they should quit Hobart. That really is not what the head of AFL Tas should be saying.

I want to know wnhat has changed in such a short time. Why is it that the league needs to create a new club and destroy an existig one when it was only a few years ago that the leagie was created. All sorts o due diligence went into ensuring the right cliubs were invited, so we were told. If things have to change so radically so soon, surely that means the process and management was a failure. Either the decision being made now is utterly wrong and contemptable, in which case AFL Tasmania management should walk, or the way the league was setup was amazinly incompetent and any remaining management of the time (virtually all of them) should walk.
They either ballsed up then or ballsed up now - or, as I believe it to be, ballsed up both times and at many points in between.
Click to expand...

Yes, & two years ago AFL Wade said Hobart were the richest club in the competition. They had something like $750k invested for their future. Do they want to join HFC, with NHFC & SBJFC so as to 'annex' that money???????
 
I personally find that I just don't give a crap about the TSL over the SFL. The SFL to me feels a little more competitive, the crowds are a lot bigger at the few games I've been to, and it just seems that the comp is better set up. I don't pretend to know a lot about the TSL structure, but as a local for one of the SFL clubs, I find that I just don't really acknowledge Clarence (closest club to my demographic) as a team I affiliate myself with.

I know a few guys who played for Hobart in the TSL, left for Lauderdale, couldn't get a game, and now they're tearing it up in the SFL, and have since told me they would never look back.
 
bahahah those twin blokes you are talking about wopuld give there left nut too be getting a game at lauderdale, as for tearing it up at the lindisfarne, im not so sure about that.
 
well anyway buddy the TSL is Steets ahead of the SFL in standard of football, That would be far more appealing to a genuine football lover i would think. As for being more competitive i doubt that also, there have been some massive margins in the SFL year on a regular weekly basis and one team has only lost 3 games in 3 and a half seasons. Your kidding yourself.
 
Halftimehero said:
well anyway buddy the TSL is Steets ahead of the SFL in standard of football, That would be far more appealing to a genuine football lover i would think
Click to expand...

Obviously not considering the crowds at TSL games are shithouse. Most people tend to go to SFL games instead. I reckon Lauderdale get great numbers to their games but the atmosphere is non-existent. The only thing you can hear are the players. The 150 people at Hobart games make a lot more noise.

Prefer to watch regional football personally.
 
JS#35 said:
Obviously not considering the crowds at TSL games are shithouse. Most people tend to go to SFL games instead. I reckon Lauderdale get great numbers to their games but the atmosphere is non-existent. The only thing you can hear are the players. The 150 people at Hobart games make a lot more noise.

Prefer to watch regional football personally.
Click to expand...
Is that more to do with the fact afltas cant get there dirty hands on the sfl to stuff it up?
The Tsl was a great comp but with all the changes and talk of mergers it is just a total debacle, the footy is of a better standard than the sfl but the people running the show are a joke, the decisions have pretty well damaged the brand that is Tsl and it wont be fixed until they have moved oning , everyone in the state have had enough of wade and co ruining our best standard of footy
 
Halftimehero said:
well anyway buddy the TSL is Steets ahead of the SFL in standard of football, That would be far more appealing to a genuine football lover i would think. As for being more competitive i doubt that also, there have been some massive margins in the SFL year on a regular weekly basis and one team has only lost 3 games in 3 and a half seasons. Your kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

Not from my experience. Probably just depends on the games we've seen, but I enjoy local footy more than a matchup between South Launceston and Glenorchy. No one is kidding themselves, it's just a matter of what one prefers. You're (<--- see the difference) probably a player, or someone closely involved with one of the TSL clubs I'd gather? If so, I don't blame you for thinking it's better, but from an outsider/media perspective, it's boring.
 
Halftimehero said:
well anyway buddy the TSL is Steets ahead of the SFL in standard of football, That would be far more appealing to a genuine football lover i would think. As for being more competitive i doubt that also, there have been some massive margins in the SFL year on a regular weekly basis and one team has only lost 3 games in 3 and a half seasons. Your kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

The competition has that much negative publicity that people just dont care anymore.

SFL had a larger crowd than the TSL for there grand finals,
Kingborough had over 2000 people to 1 of there night matches, Channel had over 1000 last saturday night. ANY TSL club would die to get those numbers, if you take out all the mums, wives and girlfriends at the TSL games be lucky to get 200 paying patrons.

No brainer SFL in a community competiton, that attracts football lovers.
Tsl is a competition run by people, who intrests are themselves, not the community!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top