No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

[Rob]

I personally think Tasmania's best bet at a team is relocating North Melbourne BUT promising the Kangaroos that they will have 11 games in Tasmania and 11 games in Melbourne (satisfying their current supporter base who will get to see their team in Melbourne even more). It would take some doing in terms of logistics of the draw but I think it would work.

How on earth would that work? Even if they rig the draw to the maximum extent possible, you could only give them 9 away games in Victoria. And no team is going to sell their home game to play in front of 10k in Melbourne.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Surely you don't use Gold Coast as your comparison? People up there couldn't give a rats about AFL.

Always fun when someone from down south thinks they're an expert on Queensland, when they're clearly not. There are plenty of people on the Gold Coast who love AFL and a huge amount of juniors. The problem is they have a team who have been poorly run for their whole existence and a stadium that is difficult to reach.

 

[madmug]

Always fun when someone from down south thinks they're an expert on Queensland, when they're clearly not. There are plenty of people on the Gold Coast who love AFL and a huge amount of juniors. The problem is they have a team who have been poorly run for their whole existence and a stadium that is difficult to reach.

Settle down, we're all experts here on BF.

Maybe if you're concerned give Leigh Matthews a call, he basically made the call regards room for only one AFL team in SEQ. He should have some idea one would think.

Looking at the drop off of junior football here, given you're account of footy on the GC, then we really do need an AFL team here.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Looking at the drop off of junior football here, given you're account of footy on the GC, then we really do need an AFL team here.

I agree. I just don't think anyone advocating a Tasmanian team needs to trash the Gold Coast to do so. We can have both, the AFL is not poor.

 

[Colonial]

I agree. I just don't think anyone advocating a Tasmanian team needs to trash the Gold Coast to do so. We can have both, the AFL is not poor.

And that's the point.

No need to bring down other clubs to boost Tassie.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

And that's the point.

No need to bring down other clubs to boost Tassie.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The AFL doesn't have an endless money tree.

If you want them to spend more in one area, they'll probably need to spend less in others.

 

[Colonial]

The AFL doesn't have an endless money tree.

If you want them to spend more in one area, they'll probably need to spend less in others.

Never said it was endless.
But they can certainly afford another team.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

Never said it was endless.
But they can certainly afford another team.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Can, sure, they 'can' afford lots of things...but it would still mean cutting back spending somewhere.

 

[Colonial]

Can, sure, they 'can' afford lots of things...but it would still mean cutting back spending somewhere.

I dont think that at all.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

I dont think that at all.

Then where does the money come from?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Settle down, we're all experts here on BF.

Maybe if you're concerned give Leigh Matthews a call, he basically made the call regards room for only one AFL team in SEQ. He should have some idea one would think.

Looking at the drop off of junior football here, given you're account of footy on the GC, then we really do need an AFL team here.

Leigh Matthews is pretty much doing the same as Paul Roos, who is our biggest hater.

He's advocating for the team he cares about avoiding competition. Neither are current AFL officials so they can say what they wish with no accountability.

Nothing really wrong with that, unless you give it some official status by implication.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Can, sure, they 'can' afford lots of things...but it would still mean cutting back spending somewhere.

Can you explain why it must involve this, given the AFL made a profit of $49 million this past year?

 

[madmug]

Leigh Matthews is pretty much doing the same as Paul Roos, who is our biggest hater.

He's advocating for the team he cares about avoiding competition. Neither are current AFL officials so they can say what they wish with no accountability.

Nothing really wrong with that, unless you give it some official status by implication.

Well those with AFL 'accountability' are hardly going to say anything!

Matthews has his opinion. Its certainly a well qualified opinion.

 

[telsor]

Can you explain why it must involve this, given the AFL made a profit of $49 million this past year?

Yes, and they did that based on a jump in media revenue that year.
They made a loss of almost $18Million the year before.

It's also not like they just burned that $49Million. It was (or will be) spent on something.

 

[Engimal v3]

I personally think Tasmania's best bet at a team is relocating North Melbourne BUT promising the Kangaroos that they will have 11 games in Tasmania and 11 games in Melbourne (satisfying their current supporter base who will get to see their team in Melbourne even more). It would take some doing in terms of logistics of the draw but I think it would work.

The main fault in that plan is that North Melbourne have to agree to being relocated when they've spent the past 10 years becoming financially stable and securing their future in Melbourne in response to a previous relocation attempt.

 

[madmug]

The main fault in that plan is that North Melbourne have to agree to being relocated when they've spent the past 10 years becoming financially stable and securing their future in Melbourne in response to a previous relocation attempt.

They don't want to come, they won't be made to come, we don't want them, they just want the money, we want to use the money for more productive purposes.

nuff said.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Yes, and they did that based on a jump in media revenue that year.
They made a loss of almost $18Million the year before.

It's also not like they just burned that $49Million. It was (or will be) spent on something.

Good thing those media deals keep continuing, and so last year's record revenue should continue. Without knowing the full details, this leads me to believe that the future will be more like last financial year than the previous financial year in terms of financial outcomes.

What were those funds spent on? It feels like a Tasmanian team would be a worthy use of such funds. There's only so much that can be spent on at the grassroots level before the money becomes ivory back scratchers for Gil and his mates.

 

[telsor]

Good thing those media deals keep continuing, and so last year's record revenue should continue. Without knowing the full details, this leads me to believe that the future will be more like last financial year than the previous financial year in terms of financial outcomes.

What were those funds spent on? It feels like a Tasmanian team would be a worthy use of such funds. There's only so much that can be spent on at the grassroots level before the money becomes ivory back scratchers for Gil and his mates.

Where does the money go? Well of $460m operating surplus last year, 307 went to clubs, 37 went to the AFLPA, 44 to development, 20 to ground improvements, 1.5 for 'social responsibility' and 3.6 to facilities. (leaving the aforementioned 48.7m profit). I dare say most of those areas would like more.
They also bought Docklands (inc $~200m debt to be paid off) and announced a fair bit more money to game development (etc) in Tas and more money to the AFLW.

Do you think that's whatever is left would cover the sum needed to pay for a team (with higher than usual base expenses) in one of the poorest areas in the country?

 

[Rob]

I dont think that at all.

Then you don't understand how the AFL works. They don't have shareholders, they're a not for profit org. Eventually they will spend everything they earn on (supposedly) to further their objectives - being the furtherance of football. Spending money on one area inevitably means they're not spending it on another area.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Where does the money go? Well of $460m operating surplus last year, 307 went to clubs, 37 went to the AFLPA, 44 to development, 20 to ground improvements, 1.5 for 'social responsibility' and 3.6 to facilities. (leaving the aforementioned 48.7m profit). I dare say most of those areas would like more.

This is all irrelevant, my question was concerning the 49m profit, not the operating surplus.

They also bought Docklands (inc $~200m debt to be paid off)

In other words, an ongoing cost that won't be onerous in any particular year.

and announced a fair bit more money to game development (etc) in Tas and more money to the AFLW.

I doubt the game development funds in Tasmania will keep growing at the same pace as revenue. As for AFLW it's clearly an investment, it will rise in popularity and I predict revenues will increase over time, paying back at least some of that investment.

Do you think that's whatever is left would cover the sum needed to pay for a team (with higher than usual base expenses) in one of the poorest areas in the country?

I certainly do. Any Tasmanian team will almost certainly have funds tipped into it by the state government so the cost will not be as high as many think.

 

[Colonial]

Then you don't understand how the AFL works. They don't have shareholders, they're a not for profit org. Eventually they will spend everything they earn on (supposedly) to further their objectives - being the furtherance of football. Spending money on one area inevitably means they're not spending it on another area.

Except they are saving funds which can be used for tassie which wont effect other spending.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Starburns_]

I doubt the game development funds in Tasmania will keep growing at the same pace as revenue. As for AFLW it's clearly an investment, it will rise in popularity and I predict revenues will increase over time, paying back at least some of that investment.

The AFLW runs at a loss currently despite the low wages of the players. It's never going to generate revenue for the game overall because any increases will go directly into the players' pockets so as to make them legitimate professionals.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The AFLW runs at a loss currently despite the low wages of the players. It's never going to generate revenue for the game overall because any increases will go directly into the players' pockets so as to make them legitimate professionals.

Never is a very long time. People once thought the Soviet Union would never fall.

 

[madmug]

This is all irrelevant, my question was concerning the 49m profit, not the operating surplus.



In other words, an ongoing cost that won't be onerous in any particular year.



I doubt the game development funds in Tasmania will keep growing at the same pace as revenue. As for AFLW it's clearly an investment, it will rise in popularity and I predict revenues will increase over time, paying back at least some of that investment.



I certainly do. Any Tasmanian team will almost certainly have funds tipped into it by the state government so the cost will not be as high as many think.

In regard to this latest 'discussion' the fact remains, the reason we're discussing this is that Gil discussed the issue of Tasmania in the AFL with AFL club CEO's. To that, the State Government is just in the process of forming a board to, apart from AFL Tasmania, to promote the aspiration to get a Tasmanian team into the AFL., as well as address the problems within our community football.

So its a live issue at AFL management levels, & with the Tasmanian State Government. That is significant. The homework must have been done that shows it's doable. Otherwise neither party would have even raised the issue. Certainly not like this, at these levels of power, & at the same time!!

It appears the 'Map' is on the Map.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

The AFLW runs at a loss currently despite the low wages of the players. It's never going to generate revenue for the game overall because any increases will go directly into the players' pockets so as to make them legitimate professionals.

It's the second year. Bear in mind you've got part time professionals who are drafted interstate. It's pretty harsh financially.

Clubs are extracting money from AFLW memberships but it's tough while entry is free.

It's early days and there'll be rapid change for a few years yet. Way too early to say it cant ever generate a surplus.