No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think people are confused as to why young people leave Tassie. It is more to do with job opportunities rather than lifestyle. Sure, like most regional places, we do lose people to the "big city". But the number 1 reason is economic and that only affects a footballer outside football connections.

A player down here would have a job, they could have access to a fantastic beachside(Riverside?) house on the Eastern shore, the city centre would only be 10-15 mins away and the airport is the same distance the other way. I am sure a Tassie club would try and help players with connections to Melbourne for family or media gigs.

As for the weather? please, we might be colder than Melbourne but we aren't so cold that it snows in the city each day. And some people like the cold more than the hot. That is a personal preference.

For example, IMO, Hobart has the best summer/autumn in the country. The days are not so hot you can't sleep or go out, they are long and the weather is consistent and mostly dry.

for me, Player retention is more of a club issue, not an issue which should help/hinder any plans for a Tasmanian team.


ha. I didn't compare the 2. I used Brisbane as an example as for why team culture has more to do with player retention than location. etc: i was talking it up. as for everything else, my god you have no idea what you're talking about.
I left tassie in 2009, due to me being a contractor at the time, I was working at a big place, where the price of metals dropped in September 2008, followed by the GFC in October 2008. Within the month, 80% of contractors were removed from site. I was fairly fortunate in that I had a lot of money saved up, and started to think of my future, and having grown up in 90’s in the recession, made the decision to move, as my experience with the tassie economy was it was the first to be hit, and the last to recover. So a lot of people do leave the state for more working opportunities, rather than leaving because they are bored!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
34,085
26,318
AFL Club
GWS
Because Tassie is one of the original footy states. It supplied a lot of talent to the mainland. It is footy heartland - unlike the new franchises. They deserve some loyalty from the AFL. Tasmanians will be onboard in a way the franchise teams can't even dream of.
Well you may want to look into the history of footy in those northern states before tarring all with the same brush.

I'm sure there are many up here who are just as loyal.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
31,291
28,986
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Because Tassie is one of the original footy states. It supplied a lot of talent to the mainland. It is footy heartland - unlike the new franchises. They deserve some loyalty from the AFL. Tasmanians will be onboard in a way the franchise teams can't even dream of.
So?

They're 2% of the country...Why should they have 5% of the teams (assuming 2 news teams are added and they get one).

If the population doesn't matter, then why are they more deserving that, say, Bendigo, which matches all the same criteria you mention? (except being a state, which lets face it is pretty much irrelevant)
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Why not?

Tassie deserves its place in the afl to its history. Daryl Baldcock, Ian Stewart, Peter Hudson.

Tassie deserves it, because when discussion first emerged that the competition would go from 16 to 18, Tasmania was the first to reach the membership quota put in place, it was the first to find its own sponsors. That it got so blatantly ignored actually led to a senate inquiry. Tassie would generate more support despite its low population base, as for most tassie supporters it would be their 2nd team.

What more does the Tasmanian population have to do afl wise in order to be recognised by the ignorant, arrogant, fools at AFL houses and supporters like yourself?

The best thing that the Tasmanian government could do is to tell the afl, to go and get f’ed, we are not paying any more money in promoting your league. Logically and emotionally it’s a sound investment in endorsing and embracing Tasmania into a truly national competition with all states representing the league. If the AFL had any morals, ethics or integrity it would have acted upon that by now, instead the executives are happy in just taking from the state in its talent, finances and infrastructure in exchange for false empathy. I also acknowledge that the team I support is a major contributor in this situation.

So once again why not?
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Because Tassie is one of the original footy states. It supplied a lot of talent to the mainland. It is footy heartland - unlike the new franchises. They deserve some loyalty from the AFL. Tasmanians will be onboard in a way the franchise teams can't even dream of.
Your starting to talk like a taswegion!
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,278
31,459
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
Why not?

Tassie deserves its place in the afl to its history. Daryl Baldcock, Ian Stewart, Peter Hudson.

Tassie deserves it, because when discussion first emerged that the competition would go from 16 to 18, Tasmania was the first to reach the membership quota put in place, it was the first to find its own sponsors. That it got so blatantly ignored actually led to a senate inquiry. Tassie would generate more support despite its low population base, as for most tassie supporters it would be their 2nd team.

What more does the Tasmanian population have to do afl wise in order to be recognised by the ignorant, arrogant, fools at AFL houses and supporters like yourself?

The best thing that the Tasmanian government could do is to tell the afl, to go and get ******, we are not paying any more money in promoting your league. Logically and emotionally it’s a sound investment in endorsing and embracing Tasmania into a truly national competition with all states representing the league. If the AFL had any morals, ethics or integrity it would have acted upon that by now, instead the executives are happy in just taking from the state in its talent, finances and infrastructure in exchange for false empathy. I also acknowledge that the team I support is a major contributor in this situation.

So once again why not?
Tasmania does not have the population centres or economics to support a team that wouldn't be a financial drain on everyone else.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2009
5,891
12,171
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
So?

They're 2% of the country...Why should they have 5% of the teams (assuming 2 news teams are added and they get one).

If the population doesn't matter, then why are they more deserving that, say, Bendigo, which matches all the same criteria you mention? (except being a state, which lets face it is pretty much irrelevant)
You're still all hung up on numbers. This bean counter mentality completely misses the point. It's about representation - Tasmania is a substantial part of Australia which has no representation despite its strong interest and contribution to football. Bendigo is not comparable because it's very close to Melbourne. It's only a 90 minute drive to Essendon Fields. Bendigo has enough representation in Victoria. You can choose from a whole bunch of teams and still be happy. There's no push for a Bendigo team because nobody cares about it. They have representation. Tasmania doesn't.

Tasmania has very poor access to AFL. North Melbourne and Hawthorn are running junkets in Tasmania as a way of propping up/supplementing their business - but that's a far cry from investing in Tasmania as their team. Nobody here gives a rats about them. There's no connection. No passion. A local team would be a very different proposition. Finally, how's that bean counter mentality working anyway? Is Gold Coast looking successful at this point? How long do you think it's going to take before that pays any dividends? Tasmania's team will dwarf the GC enterprise in no time if it's given a chance. There's no conversion rate to worry about - the locals here will be heavily onboard from day dot.

The bean-counter approach also makes it seem logical that Perth gets a third side or Melbourne gets a new side every 10 years because its population growth is rampant. Or Sydney can have 4 more teams to serve the population... But would that really be a good idea? Extra teams in areas where there is already excellent representation? Why? You miss the point about geography in football. The regional representation is what makes rivalry. Tasmania vs Victoria has an actual rivalry aspect that Bendigo/3rd Perth team/9th Vic team will never have. That's growing the game. Finally, why are you so worried about the finances of the AFL? They have plenty of money. And the Tasmanian team proposal already has a pledge of support from the Tasmanian government. They'll pick up the tab in a way that will make it look cheap to the AFL. Unlike GC where enormous sums of money have been poured in with no return as yet. By the way, I'm not campaigning for GC to be abolished here - just using them as a comparison because people have accepted their existence, but make Tasmania sound so unviable. Yet Tasmania is more viable than GC for the foreseeable future - being an Aussie rules heartland state.

(cue bean-counter response...)
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Tasmania does not have the population centres or economics to support a team that wouldn't be a financial drain on everyone else.
There are other teams in the competition already that is a financial drain on everyone else.

There are teams in the competition that don’t have the “AFL” population to support them despite the huge population of the region. While Tasmania May have the smaller population base, I’d say at least 50% of that population would support that team, compared to 5% in other areas with a larger population.

Economics I will concede, unless a group like cadbury’s, the federal group, Gunns, or a similar organisation got on board and behind the team, then it would make it hard for them to survive without AFL handouts, which the AFL already do to a vast majority of teams.
 

Starburns_

Super Moderator
Mar 30, 2011
48,471
92,840
Out searching for Pokemon
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Colts, Stars, The Exers
There are other teams in the competition already that is a financial drain on everyone else.

There are teams in the competition that don’t have the “AFL” population to support them despite the huge population of the region. While Tasmania May have the smaller population base, I’d say at least 50% of that population would support that team, compared to 5% in other areas with a larger population.

Economics I will concede, unless a group like cadbury’s, the federal group, Gunns, or a similar organisation got on board and behind the team, then it would make it hard for them to survive without AFL handouts, which the AFL already do to a vast majority of teams.
Some clubs are a financial drain but are either still there for historical reasons or because reasonable growth will see them becoming self-sustaining.

To use your example, 5% of Sydney's population is overall the same as 50% of Tassie's, but only one has the potential to grow.

If the AFL already have plenty of 'leech' clubs, why would they consider adding a new one that has no real scope to improve its position? Tassie's best hope for an AFL team is 18 healthy clubs that gives the league the freedom to take on a new one that won't financially pull it's weight.
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The AFL (league) is a professional competition. Not a charity. Bean counting is part and parcel of such competitions.
The AFL (Commission) takes responsibility for football - which it is taking some steps towards reparing the local footy in Tasmania.
Yet they provided more charity in setting up teams in non-traditional football states in, which already had a team each? I have lived in Queensland for 8 years, I have not met one Suns supporter, and only 1 person that supported the lions, in that time. The afl supporters I have known, their teams are Vic, Wa, Sa based. The only time they have an interest in going to the footy is if their team is playing up here.

Saying that giving Tasmania a team is charity, is a slap in the face to Tasmanian’s, when it’s already been proven that the AFL has given out more than charity in setting up other teams and continue to try to make them viable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,278
31,459
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
There are other teams in the competition already that is a financial drain on everyone else.

There are teams in the competition that don’t have the “AFL” population to support them despite the huge population of the region. While Tasmania May have the smaller population base, I’d say at least 50% of that population would support that team, compared to 5% in other areas with a larger population.

Economics I will concede, unless a group like cadbury’s, the federal group, Gunns, or a similar organisation got on board and behind the team, then it would make it hard for them to survive without AFL handouts, which the AFL already do to a vast majority of teams.
The fact that we already have financial drains is not an argument for adding more.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,278
31,459
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
(cue bean-counter response...)
And yet Tassie will be crying with a few years of establishment for draft concessions to keep players in the state, for caps on football department of expenditure to make things fair and for more money to be distributed from other clubs (a tax on members essentially) to subsidise their existence.
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Some clubs are a financial drain but are either still there for historical reasons or because reasonable growth will see them becoming self-sustaining.

To use your example, 5% of Sydney's population is overall the same as 50% of Tassie's, but only one has the potential to grow.

If the AFL already have plenty of 'leech' clubs, why would they consider adding a new one that has no real scope to improve its position? Tassie's best hope for an AFL team is 18 healthy clubs that gives the league the freedom to take on a new one that won't financially pull it's weight.
Actually both have the potential to grow. Yes Sydney has the more opportunity to expand its base. Tasmania as a whole, is a small population base, that is growing. Where there is now Apprently housing shortages. It may be a freak, or it could turn out to be sustainable growth. Sydney is Sydney, where population increases are a formality.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-29/tasmania-top-of-the-pops-for-population-growth,-report-finds/9370524

https://www.therealestateconversation.com.au/blog/simon-pressley/hobart-the-next-city-boom-and-it-could-be-bigger-than-sydney/hobart-property

I’m not advocating to start a Tasmanian team tomorrow, I’m advocating that Tasmania should be given the next available licence. I’m also a believer that Tasmania should have been given a licence before either GWS or the Suns, as I believe that Tasmania at the time would have been more sustainable, with a lot less concessions and financial backing.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
32,984
30,696
Launceston
AFL Club
Carlton
Yet they provided more charity in setting up teams in non-traditional football states in, which already had a team each? I have lived in Queensland for 8 years, I have not met one Suns supporter, and only 1 person that supported the lions, in that time. The afl supporters I have known, their teams are Vic, Wa, Sa based. The only time they have an interest in going to the footy is if their team is playing up here.
Its not charity if they can find what the AFL believes to be sound commercial reasoning for the expansion into Queensland and New South Wales. Commercial reasons that the AFL Commission dont believe exist in Tasmania. End of the day, its the AFL Commission that sets its criteria and determines who meets it.

Saying that giving Tasmania a team is charity, is a slap in the face to Tasmanian’s, when it’s already been proven that the AFL has given out more than charity in setting up other teams and continue to try to make them viable.
Its actually NOT proven at all that the money given to Queensland and NSW is charity at all. If the AFL is reaping income as a result of those teams existing, then those teams are probably paying their way.

I never said that giving a team to Tasmania was charity. I was responding to a post that claimed the bean counting shouldnt be part of the decision, noting that as a professional competition and featuring professional teams, bean counting is very much the major part of any decision featuring a team.

Ill note that no football codes, even the most economical of them, have a national side in Tasmania for some reason. No one else seems to be able to find sound commercial reasons either. Except Cricket - and thats likely because of the funding distribution model that cricket uses.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Jan 26, 2006
40,278
31,459
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
Its not charity if they can find what the AFL believes to be sound commercial reasoning for the expansion into Queensland and New South Wales. Commercial reasons that the AFL Commission dont believe exist in Tasmania. End of the day, its the AFL Commission that sets its criteria and determines who meets it.



Its actually NOT proven at all that the money given to Queensland and NSW is charity at all. If the AFL is reaping income as a result of those teams existing, then those teams are probably paying their way.

I never said that giving a team to Tasmania was charity. I was responding to a post that claimed the bean counting shouldnt be part of the decision, noting that as a professional competition and featuring professional teams, bean counting is very much the major part of any decision featuring a team.

Ill note that no football codes, even the most economical of them, have a national side in Tasmania for some reason. No one else seems to be able to find sound commercial reasons either. Except Cricket - and thats likely because of the funding distribution model that cricket uses.
Funding as well as history and governance.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,815
9,262
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
So?

They're 2% of the country...Why should they have 5% of the teams (assuming 2 news teams are added and they get one).

If the population doesn't matter, then why are they more deserving that, say, Bendigo, which matches all the same criteria you mention? (except being a state, which lets face it is pretty much irrelevant)
Victoria has 25% of the national population but 10 of the 18 AFL clubs (55%). But so what is the quick retort.:rolleyes:

We know the support of those 10 clubs isn't spread evenly, so some are really struggling & need massive handouts. So go for it, add Bendigo. Which, depending on which site you use & surrounding areas is about the same as Launceston.

Having a state Government DOES help. The State Government have used AFL games as an arm of tourism. Both Gil & Wil are asking questions now about the current FIFO users. I guess if Gil is a mind to it they may forget Tasmania & just add Bendigo, Ballarat, Mildura, Wodonga & even get Fitroy back, all to keep Telsor on side. ;)
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2009
5,891
12,171
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
I never said that giving a team to Tasmania was charity. I was responding to a post that claimed the bean counting shouldnt be part of the decision, noting that as a professional competition and featuring professional teams, bean counting is very much the major part of any decision featuring a team.
I never actually said bean-counting is not part of the decision, but the arguments being presented here are the worst kind of bean-counting: lacking in context. Just using coarse figures like percentage of population leads to erroneous conclusions about the sustainability of football clubs - in the case of Tasmania it ignores the exclusive backing of the state government, which is something no other club is getting. It also ignores the proportion of people that will support the new team. In Tasmania people are very ready for a team. They are asking for it, and they will buy memberships at a rate that GC and GWS can only dream of. The conversion rate of the target population does factor in. The population percentage theory leaves out all the pertinent information that a proper bean-counter would consider. So no, I'm not against bean-counters in principle - as long as they are good ones. The ideas being put forward by the nay-sayers in this thread are barely even trying to analyse the situation - which is an expression of bias against the idea.
 

Starburns_

Super Moderator
Mar 30, 2011
48,471
92,840
Out searching for Pokemon
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Colts, Stars, The Exers
Actually both have the potential to grow. Yes Sydney has the more opportunity to expand its base. Tasmania as a whole, is a small population base, that is growing. Where there is now Apprently housing shortages. It may be a freak, or it could turn out to be sustainable growth. Sydney is Sydney, where population increases are a formality.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-29/tasmania-top-of-the-pops-for-population-growth,-report-finds/9370524

https://www.therealestateconversation.com.au/blog/simon-pressley/hobart-the-next-city-boom-and-it-could-be-bigger-than-sydney/hobart-property
Roughly 3000 people a year is f*** all growth, but that wasn't my point anyway. There is greater scope and reward for the AFL in trying to attract fans from that remaining 95% in Sydney than the remaining 50% in Tassie.

I’m not advocating to start a Tasmanian team tomorrow, I’m advocating that Tasmania should be given the next available licence. I’m also a believer that Tasmania should have been given a licence before either GWS or the Suns, as I believe that Tasmania at the time would have been more sustainable, with a lot less concessions and financial backing.
It would be very surprising if Tasmania was not part of the next expansion and that seems to have been implied, but looking at the league currently there is really no appetite for it. Expansion may not be for another 20 years, so whilst Tassie are frontrunners now, who knows what the landscape will look like then.

I never actually said bean-counting is not part of the decision, but the arguments being presented here are the worst kind of bean-counting: lacking in context. Just using coarse figures like percentage of population leads to erroneous conclusions about the sustainability of football clubs - in the case of Tasmania it ignores the exclusive backing of the state government, which is something no other club is getting. It also ignores the proportion of people that will support the new team. In Tasmania people are very ready for a team. They are asking for it, and they will buy memberships at a rate that GC and GWS can only dream of. The conversion rate of the target population does factor in. The population percentage theory leaves out all the pertinent information that a proper bean-counter would consider. So no, I'm not against bean-counters in principle - as long as they are good ones. The ideas being put forward by the nay-sayers in this thread are barely even trying to analyse the situation - which is an expression of bias against the idea.
In regards to the bolded, if that backing is in the form of an annual deal/subsidy from the government (like the Hawthorn one) then the club still isn't financially viable.

The state government can't be relied upon long-term in that regard because there's no incentive for them to continue to pay up once they have what they want. If they pull their support after 10 years, are the AFL really going to pull out of Tassie? Highly unlikely.
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Its not charity if they can find what the AFL believes to be sound commercial reasoning for the expansion into Queensland and New South Wales. Commercial reasons that the AFL Commission dont believe exist in Tasmania. End of the day, its the AFL Commission that sets its criteria and determines who meets it.



Its actually NOT proven at all that the money given to Queensland and NSW is charity at all. If the AFL is reaping income as a result of those teams existing, then those teams are probably paying their way.

I never said that giving a team to Tasmania was charity. I was responding to a post that claimed the bean counting shouldnt be part of the decision, noting that as a professional competition and featuring professional teams, bean counting is very much the major part of any decision featuring a team.

Ill note that no football codes, even the most economical of them, have a national side in Tasmania for some reason. No one else seems to be able to find sound commercial reasons either. Except Cricket - and thats likely because of the funding distribution model that cricket uses.
Let’s take a look at the benefits of establishing these 2 clubs.

Financials:

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4121

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/gold-coast-suns-3-million-loss-shows-the-afl-has-big-challenge-20170330-gva778

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/the-afl-propped-up-gold-coast-suns-with-25m-after-sponsorship-woes-20180201-h0s15t

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/afl-club-gws-giants-make-loss-but-say-finances-to-be-boosted-by-canberra-stadium-upgrade-20160219-gmy83k

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/gws-given-extra-325-million-by-afl-20150223-13mn5e.html

Crowd attendances:

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/news/afl-crowd-gws-giants-west-coast-eagles-sydney/14fu7kmpng3c61fwz8dq8lj7pb

https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/gws.html

2018 crowd attendance. GWS 2nd last. Suns last in combined H & A totals.
https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2018.html

Memberships:

2017/2018 membership numbers.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-club-membership-numbers-2018-over-1-million-members-richmond-surpasses-six-figures/news-story/c9444cbade14f4027182117a55b8bac6
A good result for GWS. Not so much for the Suns.

Would Tasmania have done any better?
I believe so, especially with help from the tassie government.

To quote Andrew D: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou has said: "They probably do deserve a team, we shouldn't dismiss the contribution that Tasmania has made to our game... They are absolutely entitled to put forward a proposal, but the commission has already decided where the 17th and 18th teams are going."[20]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_AFL_bid
I know it’s wikipedia...

So it was all about wether or not they could, rather than wether or not they should.

It’s now history, wether it’s good or bad.
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
34,085
26,318
AFL Club
GWS
Let’s take a look at the benefits of establishing these 2 clubs.

Financials:

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4121

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/gold-coast-suns-3-million-loss-shows-the-afl-has-big-challenge-20170330-gva778

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/the-afl-propped-up-gold-coast-suns-with-25m-after-sponsorship-woes-20180201-h0s15t

https://www.afr.com/business/sport/afl-club-gws-giants-make-loss-but-say-finances-to-be-boosted-by-canberra-stadium-upgrade-20160219-gmy83k

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/gws-given-extra-325-million-by-afl-20150223-13mn5e.html

Crowd attendances:

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/news/afl-crowd-gws-giants-west-coast-eagles-sydney/14fu7kmpng3c61fwz8dq8lj7pb

https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/gws.html

2018 crowd attendance. GWS 2nd last. Suns last in combined H & A totals.
https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2018.html

Memberships:

2017/2018 membership numbers.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-club-membership-numbers-2018-over-1-million-members-richmond-surpasses-six-figures/news-story/c9444cbade14f4027182117a55b8bac6
A good result for GWS. Not so much for the Suns.

Would Tasmania have done any better?
I believe so, especially with help from the tassie government.

To quote Andrew D: AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou has said: "They probably do deserve a team, we shouldn't dismiss the contribution that Tasmania has made to our game... They are absolutely entitled to put forward a proposal, but the commission has already decided where the 17th and 18th teams are going."[20]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_AFL_bid
I know it’s wikipedia...

So it was all about wether or not they could, rather than wether or not they should.

It’s now history, wether it’s good or bad.
Your all short term.

This is generational and so far growing well.

You do seem to have missed some other benefits such as grassroots growth and sponsorship as well as tv dollars.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

Nugett

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2017
4,344
4,968
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Your all short term.

This is generational and so far growing well.

You do seem to have missed some other benefits such as grassroots growth and sponsorship as well as tv dollars.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
That is true I did fail in potential growth and sponsorship. T.V. Revenue, I think can be a little bit misleading, how ever it is part of the overall picture.

On a side note, I think what GWS is doing is great. Especially setting foundations in Canberra.
Hoping in 10-20 years time we are debating the need for a Canberra team.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2009
5,891
12,171
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
In regards to the bolded, if that backing is in the form of an annual deal/subsidy from the government (like the Hawthorn one) then the club still isn't financially viable.

The state government can't be relied upon long-term in that regard because there's no incentive for them to continue to pay up once they have what they want. If they pull their support after 10 years, are the AFL really going to pull out of Tassie? Highly unlikely.
Hang on, you're worried about Tasmania being a drain on the AFL, but when I tell you that the state government has publicly stated it will support the local team financially so it won't be a drain, you have an issue with that? Don't you think Tasmania deserves a chance to be viable with 10 years of low drain startup time?

The way I see it, the team will certainly be supported for at least a decade as you suggested. If after that time, they are not viable, they can fold, get more sponsors, find other ways to fund themselves, or they can get some assistance from the AFL - which would be entirely appropriate given the AFL threw 100 Million into GC. The Tasmanian team will never be a drain on the competition like the other new franchise teams were/are. And let's not forget what an extra team adds to the broadcast rights, so essentially it is funded. People get fixated on the money that gets paid to lots of clubs, but it is paid for by the broadcast rights which is predicated on a certain number of teams and matches. The whole "drain" thing needs to be put into context.
 

Top Bottom