No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,536
Likes
11,134
Location
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Starburns_

Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
47,560
Likes
88,596
Location
Out searching for Pokemon
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Colts, Stars, The Exers
Moderator #1,002
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?
No, nowhere 'deserves' a team. The concept of deserving a team is a bullshit emotional argument that gets trotted out because the financial argument is weak.

Still, to answer the question more fully, if a team in a market with virtually no scope for growth needs assistance from the outset then it's always going to be a financial leech on the rest of the competition and probably not all that 'deserving' from that perspective.

That said, financial assistance is not necessarily a bad thing in isolation, but when there are already roughly 6 clubs in this bracket it doesn't make sense to add any more until that number has shrunk.

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 AFL won't fold a club, especially a new start-up, and the value of a sponsorship for a Tasmanian team is much less than most other places due to factors of exposure.

League assistance to Tasmania is not the same as assistance to GC either. A standalone club in an already captive (and small) market shouldn't need anywhere near the assistance that a club strategically placed in an expansion market does. GC and GWS are meant to be generational exercises (that will eventually grow the game overall), all the pro-Tasmania rhetoric is about being able to make an immediate impact.

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.
Much like with sponsorship, TV money from Tassie is still less than what it would be in most other locations due to the ratings factor.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,536
Likes
11,134
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
Much like with sponsorship, TV money from Tassie is still less than what it would be in most other locations due to the ratings factor.
The revenue doesn't have to come from from Tassie, it comes from broadcasting matches right across Australia. Somebody has to play Tasmania, they have fans. They will be watching. Tasmania will be of interest to many AFL fans, even if it's of no interest to you.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,083
Likes
7,615
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.



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.



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.
Really?. Clearly their is some sort of appetite. That much is bleedin obvious if you'd read much of this thread!

If their is NO current appetite, then why did Gil speak to all the club GMs about a Tasmanian club? Why has the State Government formed & announced a special group to look at local football & a Tasmanian team?.

Given the use of AFL games here as part of the states tourism push. Neither side of politics has shown the slightest inclination to end any AFL exposure in the 17 years since Hawthorn started here. So why is the Government support any less secure than other clubs relying on pokies money? Or sponsors? Or AFL money? Or the AFLs reliance on Government support in facility development & community initiatives?

Please enlighten us?
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,716
Likes
29,016
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #1,005
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.
I suspect the league is wary of having a team that will likely be heavily dependent on governmen funding - whether direct, or indirect (ie. TT Lines) - as the team then becomes at risk of being a political football.

We arent talking about 23 million over 10 years (ie.GWS) either. Hawthorn and North combined are currently on close to 5 million a year now.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,716
Likes
29,016
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #1,006
Really?. Clearly their is some sort of appetite. That much is bleedin obvious if you'd read much of this thread!

If their is NO current appetite, then why did Gil speak to all the club GMs about a Tasmanian club? Why has the State Government formed & announced a special group to look at local football & a Tasmanian team?.
Youve really seized on this Gil talking clubs thing havent you. That might mean Gil has an appetite, it doesnt mean the AFL does.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,536
Likes
11,134
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
Really?. Clearly their is some sort of appetite. That much is bleedin obvious if you'd read much of this thread!

If their is NO current appetite, then why did Gil speak to all the club GMs about a Tasmanian club? Why has the State Government formed & announced a special group to look at local football & a Tasmanian team?.

Given the use of AFL games here as part of the states tourism push. Neither side of politics has shown the slightest inclination to end any AFL exposure in the 17 years since Hawthorn started here. So why is the Government support any less secure than other clubs relying on pokies money? Or sponsors? Or AFL money? Or the AFLs reliance on Government support in facility development & community initiatives?

Please enlighten us?
Indeed, it may well pay for itself in other ways. The idea that a Tassie club must be a financial drain and be unviable without propping up is untested. What is sponsorship about? Company gives a club money in return for exposure which reaps a return for them too. Government does the same: it's the same as sponsorship. It might take time to reap the benefit, but it's conceivable that it could benefit the state financially, and if so, why they would stop supporting it? You can bet the state government is looking it in these terms.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,716
Likes
29,016
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #1,008
Indeed, it may well pay for itself in other ways. The idea that a Tassie club must be a financial drain and be unviable without propping up is untested. What is sponsorship about? Company gives a club money in return for exposure which reaps a return for them too. Government does the same: it's the same as sponsorship. It might take time to reap the benefit, but it's conceivable that it could benefit the state financially, and if so, why they would stop supporting it? You can bet the state government is looking it in these terms.
Ive no doubt that it can get the major sponsorships required. its the rest of the sponsorship and underlying finance that concerns me.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,499
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Really?. Clearly their is some sort of appetite. That much is bleedin obvious if you'd read much of this thread!

If their is NO current appetite, then why did Gil speak to all the club GMs about a Tasmanian club? Why has the State Government formed & announced a special group to look at local football & a Tasmanian team?.

Given the use of AFL games here as part of the states tourism push. Neither side of politics has shown the slightest inclination to end any AFL exposure in the 17 years since Hawthorn started here. So why is the Government support any less secure than other clubs relying on pokies money? Or sponsors? Or AFL money? Or the AFLs reliance on Government support in facility development & community initiatives?

Please enlighten us?
Government support is likely to drop away once Tas has a team because it wont be needed any more.

No Tas team, then money is required, otherwise there are no games (and subsequent hit to tourism, etc).
If Tas has a team, then regardless of government funding there would still be games.

Why would the Govenment pay money for something that would be there anyway? They'd just sit back, collect the benefits and spend the feds money elsewhere.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,499
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
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...)
At the end of the day, to be competitive, either a Tas team needs to have the $$$ to pay for itself or the league needs to subsidise it (taking money from other areas to do so), so the 'bean counting' will be a very major part of any decision on a Tas team. Ignoring it because it doesn't suit your argument doesn't change that.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,536
Likes
11,134
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
At the end of the day, to be competitive, either a Tas team needs to have the $$$ to pay for itself or the league needs to subsidise it (taking money from other areas to do so), so the 'bean counting' will be a very major part of any decision on a Tas team. Ignoring it because it doesn't suit your argument doesn't change that.
We're ignoring it for a bunch of clubs already. It's factored into the cost of operations. If having these "drain teams" was actually detrimental to the competition, they wouldn't all be there. The clubs are providing revenue through broadcast rights - that's indisputable. You can argue that if they were all turning a profit, there would be this enormous cash reserve to spend on other things, sure, I can accept that. But where would the money go? I can tell you where most of it would go: on the AFLPA demanding the cash for the players. It wouldn't substantially change the competition. The AFL already has enough money to "grow the game". Broadcast rights are where it's at for the AFL. If they get more teams, provided they are appealing and generate genuine rivalries, they will add to the interest in the league. Judging by the level of antipathy toward Tasmania on BF, I think the rivalry with Victoria might be quite strong - it would get interest and crowds.

And by the way, I'm not ignoring the bean-counting: I'm saying the bean-counting on this particular thread is pathetic. I actually think a Tasmanian team is a viable proposition. I'm not arguing for another "drain-team", I'm arguing for a team that improves the quality of the AFL. So to everybody who wants to use that straw man, I'll this officially: Yes, I'm all for viable teams, I'm happy for bean-counters who actually consider the complexities properly to count their beans. I'm just over this whole "Tasmania has X% of the population, by that logic Sydney should have 12 teams in the AFL". It's lame pseudo-intellectualism, designed to sound incontrovertible but it just sounds like lazy drivel that doesn't consider any of the unique factors in the Tasmanian situation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Starburns_

Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
47,560
Likes
88,596
Location
Out searching for Pokemon
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Colts, Stars, The Exers
Moderator #1,012
The revenue doesn't have to come from from Tassie, it comes from broadcasting matches right across Australia. Somebody has to play Tasmania, they have fans. They will be watching. Tasmania will be of interest to many AFL fans, even if it's of no interest to you.
It's still worth less to the TV networks as an overall package. An extra team in WA or SA is more lucrative to a broadcaster than one in Tassie.

Really?. Clearly their is some sort of appetite. That much is bleedin obvious if you'd read much of this thread!

If their is NO current appetite, then why did Gil speak to all the club GMs about a Tasmanian club? Why has the State Government formed & announced a special group to look at local football & a Tasmanian team?.
Gillon has mentioned a Tassie team but that is the extent of it. For all anyone knows that could be positioning North for eventual relocation (which so many pro-Tassie types get sulky about).

Further to this, expansion would likely require an even number of teams and there is certainly no appetite for any other market to receive a team.

As for the bolded, whatever a government puts together is irrelevant to what the AFL does, you should know this after the senate inquiry.

Given the use of AFL games here as part of the states tourism push. Neither side of politics has shown the slightest inclination to end any AFL exposure in the 17 years since Hawthorn started here. So why is the Government support any less secure than other clubs relying on pokies money? Or sponsors? Or AFL money? Or the AFLs reliance on Government support in facility development & community initiatives?
The government keep extending the Hawthorn and North deals because it brings tourists and exposure that would not be there otherwise. Once the state has it's own team then there is no incentive for the government to pay long-term for something that they now get for free. Governments aren't charities, once the license is handed over (stadium and facilities upgrades notwithstanding) they will see their job as being done.

I suspect the league is wary of having a team that will likely be heavily dependent on governmen funding - whether direct, or indirect (ie. TT Lines) - as the team then becomes at risk of being a political football.

We arent talking about 23 million over 10 years (ie.GWS) either. Hawthorn and North combined are currently on close to 5 million a year now.
^^So much this.

Tasmanians might think it's hard to get a license at all, but once you have one it's even harder to lose it. The Tassie government can promise the world to get a license safe in the knowledge that they won't have to keep that financial commitment forever and can leave the AFL holding the can.

Indeed, it may well pay for itself in other ways. The idea that a Tassie club must be a financial drain and be unviable without propping up is untested.
Then someone needs to test it. Can a financially viable proposal for a Tassie team be put together without any annual government funding included?

What is sponsorship about? Company gives a club money in return for exposure which reaps a return for them too. Government does the same: it's the same as sponsorship. It might take time to reap the benefit, but it's conceivable that it could benefit the state financially, and if so, why they would stop supporting it? You can bet the state government is looking it in these terms.
It's not the same. Corporate sponsorship is fine if the club can get it because it's a two-way relationship (though as Wookie said smaller sponsorships will be harder to come by), but a government sponsorship of a local team is a subsidy.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
8,593
Likes
6,523
AFL Club
GWS
The revenue doesn't have to come from from Tassie, it comes from broadcasting matches right across Australia. Somebody has to play Tasmania, they have fans. They will be watching. Tasmania will be of interest to many AFL fans, even if it's of no interest to you.
:cool: I wouldn't concede the bean counter argument so easily. The AFL does need to be run somewhat in a businesslike manner to be sustainable. Money is tool to provide the game though, not the fundamental point of the exercise. . The issue is not can it make money, rather is it sustainable. That's a much lower bar.

The comparisons with the recent expansion clubs are pointless though. You can certainly have an opinion as to whether GC or GWS teams instead of Tasmania was the right call, but it's done now and it wont be reversed. It's not our fault Tassue missed out anyway.

The task now is go forward and achieve a team in Tasmania.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,499
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
We're ignoring it for a bunch of clubs already. It's factored into the cost of operations. If having these "drain teams" was actually detrimental to the competition, they wouldn't all be there. The clubs are providing revenue through broadcast rights - that's indisputable. You can argue that if they were all turning a profit, there would be this enormous cash reserve to spend on other things, sure, I can accept that. But where would the money go? I can tell you where most of it would go: on the AFLPA demanding the cash for the players. It wouldn't substantially change the competition. The AFL already has enough money to "grow the game". Broadcast rights are where it's at for the AFL. If they get more teams, provided they are appealing and generate genuine rivalries, they will add to the interest in the league. Judging by the level of antipathy toward Tasmania on BF, I think the rivalry with Victoria might be quite strong - it would get interest and crowds.

And by the way, I'm not ignoring the bean-counting: I'm saying the bean-counting on this particular thread is pathetic. I actually think a Tasmanian team is a viable proposition. I'm not arguing for another "drain-team", I'm arguing for a team that improves the quality of the AFL. So to everybody who wants to use that straw man, I'll this officially: Yes, I'm all for viable teams, I'm happy for bean-counters who actually consider the complexities properly to count their beans. I'm just over this whole "Tasmania has X% of the population, by that logic Sydney should have 12 teams in the AFL". It's lame pseudo-intellectualism, designed to sound incontrovertible but it just sounds like lazy drivel that doesn't consider any of the unique factors in the Tasmanian situation.
The 'drain teams' the AFL has created were put there for a purpose...To grow the game. A team in Tas wouldn't do that.

As for your opinion that Tas will not being a drain team...On what basis do you make that assertion?
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,536
Likes
11,134
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
The 'drain teams' the AFL has created were put there for a purpose...To grow the game. A team in Tas wouldn't do that.

As for your opinion that Tas will not being a drain team...On what basis do you make that assertion?
-High membership - Conversion rate will be very high. People here are itching for their own team, me among them, I'll buy a membership even though I barrack for Melbourne)

-High support from State government (I don't really care if you want to call it a subsidy, they want to do it).

- Sponsors will be onboard here - the visibility for a company attached to AFL is undeniable. I would expect a lot of minor sponsors too. Lots of smaller-medium companies wanting to get onboard.

I don't expect you to accept anything I say, but that's what I think. It's as good a theory as anything you've put forward.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
40,102
Likes
30,896
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
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.
-High membership - Conversion rate will be very high. People here are itching for their own team, me among them, I'll buy a membership even though I barrack for Melbourne)

-High support from State government (I don't really care if you want to call it a subsidy, they want to do it).

- Sponsors will be onboard here - the visibility for a company attached to AFL is undeniable. I would expect a lot of minor sponsors too. Lots of smaller-medium companies wanting to get onboard.

I don't expect you to accept anything I say, but that's what I think. It's as good a theory as anything you've put forward.
Why should my tax dollars be bludged by a Tasmanian football team?
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,499
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
-High membership - Conversion rate will be very high. People here are itching for their own team, me among them, I'll buy a membership even though I barrack for Melbourne)

-High support from State government (I don't really care if you want to call it a subsidy, they want to do it).

- Sponsors will be onboard here - the visibility for a company attached to AFL is undeniable. I would expect a lot of minor sponsors too. Lots of smaller-medium companies wanting to get onboard.

I don't expect you to accept anything I say, but that's what I think. It's as good a theory as anything you've put forward.

High membership: Ground only makes 20,000 people (and doesn't have a lot of premium facilities), so you wont have that many. (or at least, wont get much money from them).

High support from state government: Once they have a team, why would they do that? They get the benefits anyway after all.

Sponsors...small economy = small base for sponsors.
 
Last edited:

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,516
Likes
25,499
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
State taxes in Tasmania have nothing to do with WA. They aren't your dollars.
A significant part of the Tas economy is the extra GST money they receive every year. (and other federal money directed to help out the poorest state).

Bored, so I checked the numbers...
Overall, in 2018-19, the feds paid $126.8 billion to the states
Tas received $3,821M, or just over 3% of that

If they'd received money in line with population, they'd have received $2,663M

Or to put it another way, the Federal government subsidised Tasmania by $1,158M

Tas government revenue for the same period is $6 217.3 million, so 18.6% of the Tasmanian state budget, and 3.4% of the total Tas economy is the EXTRA money they get as charity from the rest of the country.

https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp3/download/Budget Paper 3.pdf
https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/2018-19-Budget-Paper-No-1.pdf
 
Last edited:

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,083
Likes
7,615
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
A significant part of the Tas economy is the extra GST money they receive every year. (and other federal money directed to help out the poorest state).

Bored, so I checked the numbers...
Overall, in 2018-19, the feds paid $126.8 billion to the states
Tas received $3,821M, or just over 3% of that

If they'd received money in line with population, they'd have received $2,663M

Or to put it another way, the Federal government subsidised Tasmania by $1,158M

Tas government revenue for the same period is $6 217.3 million, so 18.6% of the Tasmanian state budget, and 3.4% of the total Tas economy is the EXTRA money they get as charity from the rest of the country.

https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp3/download/Budget Paper 3.pdf
https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/2018-19-Budget-Paper-No-1.pdf
Yes & being an older population its mainly going in health care costs.

But be that as it may, you confuse the state budgets with the economy.

The State domestic economy was some $31billion at last count. An AFL club is peanuts compared to that.

Maybe you could also state the same case for South Australia then. They certainly benefit from Government assistance for the same reason.

Of course all this surmises what? That an AFL club is just a cost & not a benefit?
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
8,593
Likes
6,523
AFL Club
GWS
A significant part of the Tas economy is the extra GST money they receive every year. (and other federal money directed to help out the poorest state).

Bored, so I checked the numbers...
Overall, in 2018-19, the feds paid $126.8 billion to the states
Tas received $3,821M, or just over 3% of that

If they'd received money in line with population, they'd have received $2,663M

Or to put it another way, the Federal government subsidised Tasmania by $1,158M

Tas government revenue for the same period is $6 217.3 million, so 18.6% of the Tasmanian state budget, and 3.4% of the total Tas economy is the EXTRA money they get as charity from the rest of the country.

https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/bp3/download/Budget Paper 3.pdf
https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/2018-19-Budget-Paper-No-1.pdf
It's not that simple as subsidies though. The Gillard Govt had a dispute over the federal mining tax for example ( yes the failed one), when WA refused to change state royalties. So they discounted it from the GST redistribution to offset the royalties.

You can't really look at the GST in isolation.
 
Last edited:

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,083
Likes
7,615
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's not that simple as subsidies though. The Gillard Govt had a dispute over the federal mining tax for example ( yes the failed one), when WA refused to change state royalties. So they discounted it from the GST redistribution to offset the royalties.

You can really look at the GST in isolation.
Yes but that doesn't suit the narrative.
 

BobbyMorri

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 4, 2009
Posts
6,246
Likes
4,466
Location
Tasmania
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Scunny, Furth
Our Federation was built on the principle that Joe and Mary can get the same level of social services in NSW than Tas. That is not going to change for the same reason the AFL gives out more money to the small clubs. So, this talk on GST distributions is a moot point regardless.

Last time I checked, the AFL wasn't a business. If it was solely on a profit-shareholder platform, then there wouldn't be 10 teams in Vic. It is the governing body of the sport.

No place should get a team solely because they "deserve" it, but it should be a factor if they can improve to the comp. The 500K Tasmanians are as much of a shareholder in Aussie Rules than the rest of AR fans. Yet, unlike the others, we "aren't good enough", despite having 8 GAMES PLAYED DOWN HERE NEXT YEAR. Yeah, talk one way, do another.
 
Top Bottom