No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I only said 20,000 because you mentioned that as a number somewhere - and the fact that it's the current capacity of Bellerive oval. With stadium expansion, they'll get more than that if it's a reasonable game (maybe not against GWS or GC). The state government has already committed to supporting it - in case you were unaware. The startup cash will be there. Sponsors will get on board - they'll have national cameras on them with the coverage. There are national companies down here, you know. Your idea that there are barely 2 pennies to rub together down here is total BS. There is money. A Tassie team will pull its weight. Why do you need it to do more than that?
Bellerive is already ~10% the size of the local population...That's HUGE. (by comparison, the new Perth stadium is ~2%, and those saying it should be bigger wanted ~3%). It's not the ground size that's the problem.

If the money is so good, feel free to explain how they'll raise over $40M locally....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,904
3,252
AFL Club
Collingwood
Bellerive is already ~10% the size of the local population...That's HUGE. (by comparison, the new Perth stadium is ~2%, and those saying it should be bigger wanted ~3%). It's not the ground size that's the problem.

If the money is so good, feel free to explain how they'll raise over $40M locally....
The $40M is a bit of a furphy. The smaller clubs have $40M turnovers but you need to deduct the base AFL distribution from it at least
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
The $40M is a bit of a furphy. The smaller clubs have $40M turnovers but you need to deduct the base AFL distribution from it at least
As I said above...if the AFL is to chip in, then you need to explain how the AFL will make that much more money from a Tas team...It's not like it appears out of nowhere after all.
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,904
3,252
AFL Club
Collingwood
As I said above...if the AFL is to chip in, then you need to explain how the AFL will make that much more money from a Tas team...It's not like it appears out of nowhere after all.
OK, fair enough......So you are saying that the AFL revenues need to increase by whatever they are required to chip in (including base distributions)

I think the decision shouldn't be completely commercial but certainly agree that the Tasmanian bid needs to ensure they cover at least everything but the base distribution. The base distribution could be considered the AFL's CSO even if there is unlikely to be an expansion in, say, TV revenues from adding a Tassie team
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,836
3,335
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I have no idea how you just arbitrarily came up with "no one" supporting a merged team that pays proper respect to both identities, it doesn't follow from anything said earlier.

As for the Melbourne-Hawthorn merger, a chief reason it didn't happen was that it didn't pay proper respect to both heritages. It was voted down by Hawthorn members because the proposal looked like a simple takeover of their club by Melbourne, as can be seen by the jumper, which was clearly a Melbourne jumper with a hawk pasted on it. And Hawthorn proved they didn't need to merge to remain solvent anyway. The Footscray-Fitzroy merger died for similar reasons. I reckon that if the North-Fitzroy merger went ahead, it would have been embraced by both sets of supporters since both teams were in real trouble and the proposals actually demonstrated respect to both identities, and North's future remains speculated about to this day.

Think about this, what's more likely to keep a fanbase invested in the game: a merger, or their club being relegated to the VFL? I'm certain it's the former, because fans want to watch top-level football. Otherwise all state leagues would be thriving right now. Keeping the status quo would be even more likely to keep them invested of course, but we don't know if that's sustainable. Several clubs, including the one I support, only remain in existence due to central AFL funding. Our clubs continue to exist at their whim. If they decide they no longer want to keep funding every single struggling club to their present extent, we had better start finding alternatives or risk going out of existence. A merger is better than total collapse.


Ah yes, all those thousands of Roy Boys and Girls who regularly attend VAFA games. Not all of them went on to support the Brisbane Lions, of course, but many did. And it's harder to remain engaged with a club when the team doesn't play 11 games a year and their identity and culture is no longer mostly Victorian. I don't think there'd be some huge drop off in support if two small Victorian teams merged. Some people will, no doubt, but you have no real evidence to say "no one" will support them, or that most fans would drop off.


Because of some archaic decision made 30 years ago, to keep every VFL team when it became the AFL, no matter how low their support? That's already been proven to be an unwise decision, as Fitzroy only lasted six more years after that. There's no reason we have to keep respecting a decision that has already been altered since.

Ok not "everyone" would drop support - but it seems you've admitted that most would. As for Bris most did not follow, Roylion has the figures for memory I think it's not in the majority.

As for Hawthorn, yeah hawks fan didn't want their club to fold - result they're still here.

As for your last paragraph, so we what do we do with those 100+ year old teams? It's likely that the clubs would return in some form to a state comp and the supporters will follow.

There's reasons why teams like north, dogs, dees and saints are STILL in the league. Combined there's too much supporter base for HQ to give up.

There is a thread I posted a couple of years ago that outlines why this comp can never be truly national.


What should've happened but was highly improbable is that we have complete new teams like we had from sa and wa BUT also new teams from vic. The problem with that is that it is unlikely the vic fans would adopt new teams in the same manner that sa and wa fans did / would. I imagine It would be a 2nd interest at best for them (myself certainly)

That would be a truly national comp that all non vic supporters crave so badly to install equity, but it's likely where the old vic clubs go their fans will follow and we all know where the overwhelming bulk of that is.

We can round and round in circles on this, but no amount of whining, finger pointing etc. etc. will change anything. It is what it is.

To be perfectly honest in a utopian sense, I'd rather the VFL back with South and Fitzroy, the WAFL and SANFL too. That way we truly know those comps are equitable. There'd still be media and money in all of them and everyone can follow their original teams not some start up that their fans view as a state representative in a non representation comp.
 

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2009
5,793
11,866
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
Bellerive is already ~10% the size of the local population...That's HUGE. (by comparison, the new Perth stadium is ~2%, and those saying it should be bigger wanted ~3%). It's not the ground size that's the problem.

If the money is so good, feel free to explain how they'll raise over $40M locally....
You really do see yourself as an expert in this matter don't you? But all you do is make comparisons with population and percentages. There are more unique factors in Tasmania than that which make the these comparisons irrelevant. I could try to discuss those with you, but you will just bring it back to your stock arguments anyway so I won't waste my time. Just wait and see, there will be a Tassie team, and it will have got through the AFL's examinations in order for that to happen. The AFL have resisted it for so long, they aren't going to tip much money into it, so if it gets up, it's because there is a sustainable business case for it. Now, if that happens, will you finally shut your trap on it, or will you just launch into a couple of decades of the same analysis and explain to us why Tasmania is a drain on the competition? Do you spend much time analysing why GWS and the Suns have drained the competition? It's coming up to a decade soon, and it would be fair to say that so far they haven't made a cent for the AFL (even with increased broadcast rights). Probably around $250 million in the red so far, probably not turning a profit in the foreseeable future, so how long will this "they'll eventually buy in" notion be an argument? The entire GWS/Suns thing is total speculative investment. There is, and never has been, any guarantee that it will ever make money for the AFL. After all, there are competing sports which could swoop in and take away all of the forecast growth of the game in those markets. That's why analysis based only on population and percentages is superficial at best.
 

Hawkk

Hall of Famer
Sep 17, 2004
38,996
12,426
Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Kennett and Reeves held talks with the task force in Launceston earlier this month and conveyed the message that they could move to depart Tasmania if the state pushed ahead with its bid for a stand-alone team. The Hawthorn view was that it could reap the same or a better financial result by playing more games at the MCG.

Kennett came out with the same statement in 2010 and given the writing has been on the wall for at least 8 years I really don’t understand why we didn’t take the compensation on offer when the AFL wanted to push Hawthorn out and relocate North Melbourne
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
"It would be subject to us submitting a compelling and sustainable business case that we can actually add value to the AFL and not simply existing to take from the pie.
Gee, it's almost like that's what I've been saying for years....and been routinely shouted down for it...

A new team has to be good *FOR THE AFL*, not just the place it's situated.

If they can prove that, then welcome to the league...
 

worldlylizard19

Debutant
Sep 23, 2012
91
153
AFL Club
Geelong
Gee, it's almost like that's what I've been saying for years....and been routinely shouted down for it...

A new team has to be good *FOR THE AFL*, not just the place it's situated.

If they can prove that, then welcome to the league...
They need to walk away from the AFL and make a bid for a NRL team to get the AFL interested in putting in a team in Tassie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

deltablues

Club Legend
Jul 16, 2013
1,622
1,670
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Gee, it's almost like that's what I've been saying for years....and been routinely shouted down for it...

A new team has to be good *FOR THE AFL*, not just the place it's situated.

If they can prove that, then welcome to the league...
Gee, it looks like your credibility on this topic is zero.

You do recall, when pressed on this exact commercial point (plus in the context that the AFL is a custodian of Aussie Rules and has a conflict of interest), that you stated, and are on record as having stated, that you had no problems with a Tas team provided it was not at the expense of a Melbourne-based AFL team.

Turns out this proviso was, to be charitable, total BS on your part, right?

Plus awesome hypocrisy. Gold Coast springs to mind.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Gee, it looks like your credibility on this topic is zero.

You do recall, when pressed on this exact commercial point (plus in the context that the AFL is a custodian of Aussie Rules and has a conflict of interest), that you stated, and are on record as having stated, that you had no problems with a Tas team provided it was not at the expense of a Melbourne-based AFL team.

Turns out this proviso was, to be charitable, total BS on your part, right?

Plus awesome hypocrisy. Gold Coast springs to mind.
Except that wasn't really what I said, was it?

Yes. I've been against killing off a Vic club for 'financial reasons' only to replace it with a less financially viable Tas club.

But when it comes to *expansion*, I've been pretty consistent that the new club(s) need to add to the league.

Oh, and while I don't agree with the strategy, the theory is that GC & GWS *DO* add to the league by providing an engine for long term expansion in areas the game isn't currently popular...A factor that is not relevant in Tas.
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2016
4,904
3,252
AFL Club
Collingwood
They need to walk away from the AFL and make a bid for a NRL team to get the AFL interested in putting in a team in Tassie.
No, they really don't. They should be doing precisely what they are doing

Trying to get an AFL team by bidding for an NRL team would demonstrate a level of sense and judgement unfitting of operating a successful AFL club. Impress numpties in bigfooty maybe but won't achieve much else

Pulling together a coordinated and credible business case with political, business and sporting leaders presenting a united front is precisely the approach that would lead to success.
 

deltablues

Club Legend
Jul 16, 2013
1,622
1,670
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
Except that wasn't really what I said, was it?

Yes. I've been against killing off a Vic club for 'financial reasons' only to replace it with a less financially viable Tas club.

But when it comes to *expansion*, I've been pretty consistent that the new club(s) need to add to the league.

Oh, and while I don't agree with the strategy, the theory is that GC & GWS *DO* add to the league by providing an engine for long term expansion in areas the game isn't currently popular...A factor that is not relevant in Tas.
Yes, you did say it. About Tasmania. Not other "new club(s)'.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Yes, you did say it. About Tasmania. Not other "new club(s)'.
I look forward to seeing the quote.

and given Tas is the most frequently mentioned potential new club, I think those two are almost interchangable, so yes, if you prefer...A new Tas club would need to add to the league. I don't see how that changes my point(s) in any way.
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,548
3,189
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
I'll just ask the question of Telsor then - does the notion of "what's added to the league" have to be a financial benefit? A side representing Tasmania does have a fair degree of support Australia wide, before it gets dissected as we're doing here, due to past history...

As a hypothetical: If a new franchise was shown and proved itself to be one which didn't adversely affect the financial state of the AFL (if it wasn't, then we already know your answer, but work with me here - if it was), then is it possible for the benefit brought by a Tasmanians side to be one of historical significance and general footy fan popularity? Would that be a good enough reason if the bottom line at the very least didn't suffer?
 

deltablues

Club Legend
Jul 16, 2013
1,622
1,670
Rapid City, South Dakota
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt, Green Bay Packers
I look forward to seeing the quote.

and given Tas is the most frequently mentioned potential new club, I think those two are almost interchangable, so yes, if you prefer...A new Tas club would need to add to the league. I don't see how that changes my point(s) in any way.
I'm not your PA. Go back 2 or 3 years ago and you'll find it.
 

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,457
2,906
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Ok not "everyone" would drop support - but it seems you've admitted that most would. As for Bris most did not follow, Roylion has the figures for memory I think it's not in the majority.
It probably wasn't. However, the mistake the AFL made was caving to the pressure against a merge with North, and instead merging Fitzroy's licence with a non-Victorian team. I'm certain the disconnect is felt greater when the merged team isn't local and flies in for just a few games per season, instead of having 14-18 games in Melbourne every year. I can't say for sure, but I would imagine the retention would be greater in a merger between two Melbourne teams as they're still local.

As for your last paragraph, so we what do we do with those 100+ year old teams? It's likely that the clubs would return in some form to a state comp and the supporters will follow.
For how long will they follow before the support dies off and the team drops to the level of support of Frankston or Werribee? The next generation aren't going to care. You can see this with Fitzroy, who still exist in the VAFA, and barely anyone goes to watch them. A full merge of clubs locally, and not just the AFL licence but a full merger of equals, is a kinder fate than that.

What should've happened but was highly improbable is that we have complete new teams like we had from sa and wa BUT also new teams from vic. The problem with that is that it is unlikely the vic fans would adopt new teams in the same manner that sa and wa fans did / would. I imagine It would be a 2nd interest at best for them (myself certainly)
Probably. I don't think you'll find many people arguing that the big 4 at the very least should have bit the dust. They were always going to be kept on. The remaining six clubs probably could have been coalesced into 2-3 new clubs to create strong entities similar to the Adelaide Crows, but we saw with Hawthorn and the Bulldogs that clubs tend to fight any loss of identity until they're financially dead. As you say, it's a moot point now. I still think North, Melbourne and St Kilda would be stronger if at least two of them merged though.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,836
3,335
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I can't say for sure, but I would imagine the retention would be greater in a merger between two Melbourne teams as they're still local.
But they're no longer the original team, support would be minuscule. Being "local" would mean zero as it would no longer be their team as they knew it, unless you're suggesting the fan base would just accept it. Mmmnup.
For how long will they follow before the support dies off and the team drops to the level of support of Frankston or Werribee?
How and why exactly would that happen? why would the support die off?, all of those teams have had 100+ years of support. Not gonna drop off now.
North, Melbourne and St Kilda would be stronger if at least two of them merged though.
And how would they be stronger if the fan base is dissolved as a result of a merger?


You seem to be of the thinking that the vic club fan is / should be of the mindset "it's a national comp and I want my team merged / culled for the sake of equity, yep can't wait"

Yeah, nah.
 

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,457
2,906
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
But they're no longer the original team, support would be minuscule. Being "local" would mean zero as it would no longer be their team as they knew it, unless you're suggesting the fan base would just accept it. Mmmnup.
If you say so. But I reckon if the choice is between that and relegation or insolvency, they'll grin and bear it. St Kilda are already subsidised just as much as the expansion teams are, according to Gil. North have so few supporters that I can't see them surviving another century. One day a reckoning will come.

How and why exactly would that happen? why would the support die off?, all of those teams have had 100+ years of support. Not gonna drop off now.
You're the one talking about relegating them to state comps, not me. Fitzroy play in the VAFA as I said above and they don't draw big crowds. I doubt they mean anything more to the young people in Melbourne now who would have been their target fanbase, than "that one team grandpa used to support ages ago".

And how would they be stronger if the fan base is dissolved as a result of a merger?
That's a big if. Even with some dropoff they'd still have more members than a single struggling Melbourne team does now. St George Illawarra in the NRL are a stronger club now than the two constituent clubs were in the 90s.

You seem to be of the thinking that the vic club fan is / should be of the mindset "it's a national comp and I want my team merged / culled for the sake of equity, yep can't wait"
I said no such thing, you're just putting words in my mouth. If the choice is between merger and insolvency, I'm certain some of them will accept the merger despite their misgivings.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,836
3,335
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
If you say so. But I reckon if the choice is between that and relegation or insolvency, they'll grin and bear it.
But there's nothing to suggest relegation or insolvency is going to happen.
You're the one talking about relegating them to state comps, not me.
Well that would be the only way you get your ideal national comp. But it's not ideal for the vic club fan
That's a big if. Even with some dropoff they'd still have more members than a single struggling Melbourne team does now.
That would require fans to just drop their current club in favour of a merged hybrid. You honestly think they're going to do that?
I said no such thing, you're just putting words in my mouth. If the choice is between merger and insolvency, I'm certain some of them will accept the merger despite their misgivings.
The lowest member number for a vic club is roughly 40k each and probably each vic club has at least 100k supporters that sit on the seats and couches.

We can go round and round in circles - boil it down and dissect as much as you want. The fact is the reason we don't have a true national comp is because you can't.

IF we did have a true national comp it would be made up of new vic teams added to the current non vic clubs. No original vic team would join this hypothetical because they wouldn't be accessible as they are now if this comp was to be truly equitable - the members and the fans wouldn't go for it.

At best it would be a 2nd interest for them. Speaking for myself I'd be watching Collingwood and Collingwood wouldn't be in favour of joining a comp where they play a lot less in Melbourne- I'm more than certain that the majority of vic club fans would have a similar mindset.

I think I'll leave this discussion there, it pretty much sums up the reality we have. As much as the non vic doesn't like it, it is what it is.
 

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,457
2,906
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
But there's nothing to suggest relegation or insolvency is going to happen.
I never suggested relegation. You did. Insolvency can happen at any time, given St Kilda at least have been stated by the AFL to be propped up as much as the newest clubs are. If the AFL starts funding them only to the extent they fund West Coast or Collingwood, things would get hairy financially. It remains to be seen whether North can stick around in Melbourne indefinitely given they have a lower membership and lower attendances than any other Melbourne club by a significant margin. My money is on them not existing in their current form a century from now.

That would require fans to just drop their current club in favour of a merged hybrid. You honestly think they're going to do that?
I point you to NRL teams. St George did. Illawarra did. Western Suburbs did. Balmain did. The threat of imminent extinction has a funny way of making people somewhat pragmatic. I don't imagine 100% of each fanbase would accept it, but a large amount would if it's a merger of equals and remaining in the same city as both clubs. Fitzroy-Brisbane is not a fair comparison as it doesn't satisfy either of those conditions. Melbourne-Hawthorn would have only satisfied one of them.

The lowest member number for a vic club is roughly 40k each and probably each vic club has at least 100k supporters that sit on the seats and couches.
All that matters is the bottom line - attendances, viewers and finances. The minute one club can no longer remain competitive in those areas, it's time to worry.

IF we did have a true national comp it would be made up of new vic teams added to the current non vic clubs. No original vic team would join this hypothetical because they wouldn't be accessible as they are now if this comp was to be truly equitable - the members and the fans wouldn't go for it.

At best it would be a 2nd interest for them. Speaking for myself I'd be watching Collingwood and Collingwood wouldn't be in favour of joining a comp where they play a lot less in Melbourne- I'm more than certain that the majority of vic club fans would have a similar mindset.
I don't know why you decided to invent some brand new competition. What I suggested is a merger of two of the poorest Melbourne teams to allow Tasmania in and keep an even number of teams without going to 20. This scenario you've concocted is simply a distraction.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,797
27,870
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I'll just ask the question of Telsor then - does the notion of "what's added to the league" have to be a financial benefit? A side representing Tasmania does have a fair degree of support Australia wide, before it gets dissected as we're doing here, due to past history...

As a hypothetical: If a new franchise was shown and proved itself to be one which didn't adversely affect the financial state of the AFL (if it wasn't, then we already know your answer, but work with me here - if it was), then is it possible for the benefit brought by a Tasmanians side to be one of historical significance and general footy fan popularity? Would that be a good enough reason if the bottom line at the very least didn't suffer?
It doesn't need to have a financial gain, but it needs to have some clear benefit/gain. (see GC/GWS and the supposed 'grow the game' benefit).

Given a Tas team wont grow the game appreciably (it might slow/reverse decline in Tas a bit, but the numbers wouldn't be huge, especially as the problem is more about demographics and societal changes than having a club), then it either needs to show it wont be a multi million dollar financial black hole for the conceivable future, or that it has another real benefit (i.e. something other than sentimentality and empty gestures).

So, if not financial benefit, what benefit would a Tas team provide?
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,836
3,335
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I never suggested relegation. You did. Insolvency can happen at any time, given St Kilda at least have been stated by the AFL to be propped up as much as the newest clubs are. If the AFL starts funding them only to the extent they fund West Coast or Collingwood, things would get hairy financially. It remains to be seen whether North can stick around in Melbourne indefinitely given they have a lower membership and lower attendances than any other Melbourne club by a significant margin. My money is on them not existing in their current form a century from now.


I point you to NRL teams. St George did. Illawarra did. Western Suburbs did. Balmain did. The threat of imminent extinction has a funny way of making people somewhat pragmatic. I don't imagine 100% of each fanbase would accept it, but a large amount would if it's a merger of equals and remaining in the same city as both clubs. Fitzroy-Brisbane is not a fair comparison as it doesn't satisfy either of those conditions. Melbourne-Hawthorn would have only satisfied one of them.


All that matters is the bottom line - attendances, viewers and finances. The minute one club can no longer remain competitive in those areas, it's time to worry.


I don't know why you decided to invent some brand new competition. What I suggested is a merger of two of the poorest Melbourne teams to allow Tasmania in and keep an even number of teams without going to 20. This scenario you've concocted is simply a distraction.
I suggested relegation because the only way to have a national comp is to have a national comp - the trade off is that none of the original vic clubs would join it because the fans are going to follow their team - they're not going to jump off for the sake of following a brand new start up in another comp.

The very reason why have the comp that we have is because the bulk of the market is in vic. I's pretty simple stuff, if you were to somehow have a national comp with a vic start up and have the old VFL back. Guess where the vic club fans are going to be paying their attention.

There's no way around it.

As far as your comment on the bottom line, when and why exactly will those clubs be noncompetitive in those areas? They're still putting bums on seats and couches 100 odd years later.

I can't be any clearer than that mate, let's just leave it there.
 

Top Bottom