No AFL team for Tasmania, league boss Gillon McLachlan announces

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,614
3,218
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
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?
Few hundred thousand extra AFL fans. It's clear that Tas wants it's own team and would back it in.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,614
3,218
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
The vast majority of whom are already AFL fans, so they're hardly 'extras'.
I'd argue the bulk of em right now aren't as heavily invested as they would be if they had their own team. It's clear they'd be more financially invested if they had their own team. More attendances more bums on couches watching their team - equals more $$$ for AFL and less of propping up of a Tas team. Certainly not to the degree of a suns or giants.

If there is one non issue, it's the immediate membership and following they'd get - would bet my house they'd have more members instantly than those two.
 

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,257
2,661
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
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.
I've said nothing at all so far about a national comp, you're arguing with yourself really.

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.
The costs of running a professional team go up with time. Revenues need to also, or you lose money. Fitzroy put bums on seats and couches too, just not enough when the costs started increasing.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,614
3,218
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I've said nothing at all so far about a national comp, you're arguing with yourself really.


The costs of running a professional team go up with time. Revenues need to also, or you lose money. Fitzroy put bums on seats and couches too, just not enough when the costs started increasing.
The reason why I mention a "national" comp is because only a true equitable national comp is the only way to shut the whingers up. But as I've clearly outlined it wouldn't work anyway.

You seem confident that a couple of the original teams will go by the wayside, IF that were the case it would've happened by now.

We've gone over this ad nauseum, time to put it to bed. We have what we have - just accept it. Or don't not fussed.

I won't be replying on this subject again to you.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
30,623
27,547
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I'd argue the bulk of em right now aren't as heavily invested as they would be if they had their own team. It's clear they'd be more financially invested if they had their own team. More attendances more bums on couches watching their team - equals more $$$ for AFL and less of propping up of a Tas team. Certainly not to the degree of a suns or giants.

If there is one non issue, it's the immediate membership and following they'd get - would bet my house they'd have more members instantly than those two.
Oh, sure, it'd be bigger initially, but the AFL looks long term (GC/GWS are probably 30-50 year investments before they make a real return), and given growth in Tas is predicted to be small (official predictions have their population declining from about 2030) then you'd have to wonder what condition they'll be in after that time frame.

As for more money, would they add the necessary $40M or so a team requires currently? (let alone in future with limited growth prospects against other teams that are getting bigger).
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
5,614
3,218
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Oh, sure, it'd be bigger initially, but the AFL looks long term (GC/GWS are probably 30-50 year investments before they make a real return), and given growth in Tas is predicted to be small (official predictions have their population declining from about 2030) then you'd have to wonder what condition they'll be in after that time frame.

As for more money, would they add the necessary $40M or so a team requires currently? (let alone in future with limited growth prospects against other teams that are getting bigger).
Fair points, how many clubs now don't raise that $40m now? More than a couple - all teams receive payments from HQ via tv $$. Unless the Tas population goes backwards to almost zero they'll always have support. Right now any living Tasmanian that follows footy will support that team til their end (not the club).

For your question for after 2030, there would have to be a mass exodus to make any real dent to the supporter base. To almost zero.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,213
8,888
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
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.
The AFL had no choice. Any AFL commission recommendation to restructure the competition in 1996 had to be ratified by a minimum two thirds of the participant clubs. Now it is 75%. The clubs in 1996 refused to sanction the North-Fitzroy merger. There was nothing the AFL commission could do about it.

And in any case the licences weren't merged.

A full merge of clubs locally, and not just the AFL licence but a full merger of equals, is a kinder fate than that.
It has to be seen as an equal merger. One of the major reasons why the 1989 Footscray-Fitzroy merger was so vehemently opposed, was that the "Fitzroy Bulldogs" playing out of Princes Park in Fitzroy colours was seen as a takeover. Had it been the "Footscray Lions" in Fitzroy colours with the FFC jumper playing out of the Western Oval, then it may well have gone ahead.

Fitzroy supporters gain: 'Lions' moniker and jumper colours.

735215


Footscray supporters gain: Name of club "Footscray" and traditional home ground (Western Oval)

I still think North, Melbourne and St Kilda would be stronger if at least two of them merged though.
And how do you create an equal merger than both sets of supporters can at least live with?

The only way a Tasmanian club wll come in will be as a 19th club. Personally I'd also take the opportunity to put in a third WA club, play a 19 round home and away season and introduce a Final 10 (with extra finals to make up for Rounds 20-22.)
 

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,257
2,661
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
And how do you create an equal merger than both sets of supporters can at least live with?
Good question. I couldn't say for sure until I've researched the issues in great depth and talked to many fans from all three clubs to understand what appeals to them. All I'm saying is, I'd rather not relegate a club to an inferior league and have them sink into obscurity.

The only way a Tasmanian club wll come in will be as a 19th club. Personally I'd also take the opportunity to put in a third WA club, play a 19 round home and away season and introduce a Final 10 (with extra finals to make up for Rounds 20-22.)
This is my preference too, to the letter. There's not a single thing in this paragraph I don't like.

I just noticed there are a lot of people complaining even about 18 teams, let alone 20, and that whole discussion was exploring if Tasmania could be introduced without that group whinging incessantly.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,213
8,888
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Good question. I couldn't say for sure until I've researched the issues in great depth and talked to many fans from all three clubs to understand what appeals to them. All I'm saying is, I'd rather not relegate a club to an inferior league and have them sink into obscurity.
At least they still exist in their own right. A merger by definition begins a new club. Having said that, the Brisbane Lions are not a new club. They began life in 1987 as the Brisbane Bears.

I just noticed there are a lot of people complaining even about 18 teams, let alone 20, and that whole discussion was exploring if Tasmania could be introduced without that group whinging incessantly.
Their "dilution of talent" argument is inane.

You'd think with Australia's population projected to have an extra 14 million people by 2050 there would be surely be at least another 80 players of a talent commensurate with that of current existing AFL talent to fill two extra teams in the near future.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Johnny Bananas

Club Legend
Sep 10, 2010
2,257
2,661
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The dilution of talent argument is inane.

You'd think with Australia's population projected to have an extra 14 million people by 2050 there would be surely be at least another 80 players of a talent commensurate with that of current existing AFL talent to fill two extra teams in the near future.
Indeed, and we can always go down to 16 players on the field if need be, mostly to decongest the gameplay, but this would also spread talent around further.
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,540
3,150
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
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?
If you ignore the financial side again, a Tasmanian side gives up to half a million supporters a vehicle to launch their sporting passion onto everyone else. This is the entire reason for sport in the first place! You don't even need to explain the finer details of that - anyone who denies the footy passion and legacy of the state of Tasmania doesn't understand footy, sport, and possibly even life...!

But yeah, crunch the numbers. The AFL did that before any of us, and have a clear strategic plan for the sport in this country, which involves my home state being pushed into the volcano as a sacrifice to the footy gods (who honour us with their tipping comp blessings, protect my team's players from injury, and who have giant penises). The AFL's numbers (by no means conclusive and comprehensively argued with, but hey, it's their call) lead them to this course of action. But in an ideal universe, Tasmania plays national footy. It's in the game's best interest to look at every conceivable and viable avenue for the wellbeing of the state's footy, and according to AFL logic, that happens when you put AFL sides in. They've done neither - no side, but decades of utter rape and pillage to the local scene. AFL teams prop up the footy environments of every mainland state, meaning that while Ballarat, the WA goldfields and some other mainland regions can boast impressive returns in producing top level talent, none of them can boast the Brownlows, Team of the Century, awards and achievements of the state of Tasmania whilst still claiming an assistance via local AFL teams that Tassie doesn't get. It's bulls**t. Sydney and Brisbane have footy populations no bigger than Tassie, and probably never will, and the GC is an utter minnow by comparison - the two new sides exist solely for tv, so if their existence is based upon ensuring the viability of teams that people really want in the comp, then why can't that comp include a side fans almost unanimously state would be good for it providing you get past the financial arguments?
Said this before - it's like GWS is the supermodel constantly rejecting the advances of the AFL until she finally caved in for a chaperoned date, while Tassie is Ugly Betty sending constant texts and nude photos without a reply. Buy each of them dinner and see what happens...!

You shouldn't be asking what benefit would a Tasmanian side bring. You should be asking what benefits has Tasmanian football already brought to the sport that are being robbed of through mainland opportunism and selfishness. You talk "growth", but Tassie is the fully formed tree you didn't need to plant as a seed in the first place. I guarantee it won't "slow the decline" - it will be the biggest shot in the arm Tasmania has ever experienced in anything. And if the numbers crunch into a viable plan for their inclusion, then there is no reason to deny their bid...
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
32,286
29,703
Launceston
AFL Club
Carlton
no side, but decades of utter rape and pillage to the local scene.
Its not rape and pillage if your players choose to go.

AFL teams prop up the footy environments of every mainland state, meaning that while Ballarat, the WA goldfields and some other mainland regions can boast impressive returns in producing top level talent, none of them can boast the Brownlows, Team of the Century, awards and achievements of the state of Tasmania whilst still claiming an assistance via local AFL teams that Tassie doesn't get.
Just how much money from AFL sides do you think goes back to the Victorian and WA Gold fields leagues? AFL money goes mostly into running the TAC Cup and development pathways, very little goes to the country leagues and clubs.


It's bulls**t. Sydney and Brisbane have footy populations no bigger than Tassie, and probably never will,
[citation needed]


the two new sides exist solely for tv
Except they dont. These two sides are being used to drive participation and development in a state historically bereft of it, and by the numbers coming through that seems to be working.


so if their existence is based upon ensuring the viability of teams that people really want in the comp, then why can't that comp include a side fans almost unanimously state would be good for it providing you get past the financial arguments?
The AFL has said on and off for 40 years that it doesnt believe the financial arguments stand up.

You shouldn't be asking what benefit would a Tasmanian side bring. You should be asking what benefits has Tasmanian football already brought to the sport that are being robbed of through mainland opportunism and selfishness.
And tasmanian greed. These players didnt go to the VFL for free. And yet somehow this is all the AFLs fault.

then there is no reason to deny their bid...
League doesnt even need a reason, the commission isnt obliged to accept any new teams into the competition if it doesnt want them.
 

BobbyMorri

Norm Smith Medallist
May 4, 2009
6,779
4,979
Tasmania
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Scunny, Furth
I'd argue the bulk of em right now aren't as heavily invested as they would be if they had their own team. It's clear they'd be more financially invested if they had their own team. More attendances more bums on couches watching their team - equals more $$$ for AFL and less of propping up of a Tas team. Certainly not to the degree of a suns or giants.

If there is one non issue, it's the immediate membership and following they'd get - would bet my house they'd have more members instantly than those two.
Yep, that would describe me. I am not a member of the Swans or any other club. I would not give much to the AFL organisation in terms of dollars. A Tassie team would change that.

I am tired of all this talk. I think my hope of an AFL team died when Vlad gave us the finger. I don't know how the older Tasmanians, who lived through the 90's and earlier fingers the VFL/AFL gave us, continue to hold on to that hope of a team.

I live in hope that the NBL will give us a team so, we can give the finger to all the mainlanders. And if that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about the NBL than the AFL in, say, 10 years time. It will be just easier to support a local team.

But I follow a lot of sports and not just an 1/2 sport person. Many Tasmanians will continue to support their AFL clubs regardless and some won't even switch from those to a new Tasmanian one.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,014
8,380
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Its not rape and pillage if your players choose to go.

Well Its hardly a 'choice' if you want to be a professional footballer. They can be professional at cricket & stay here, its about the only sport in that regard.

The AFL stopped paying transfer fees to 'lesser' leagues years ago. So the costs to clubs of providing facilities & coaching remains the clubs cost. SFA from the AFL for the players they pick up.

I mean, really?
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that would describe me. I am not a member of the Swans or any other club. I would not give much to the AFL organisation in terms of dollars. A Tassie team would change that.

I am tired of all this talk. I think my hope of an AFL team died when Vlad gave us the finger. I don't know how the older Tasmanians, who lived through the 90's and earlier fingers the VFL/AFL gave us, continue to hold on to that hope of a team.

I live in hope that the NBL will give us a team so, we can give the finger to all the mainlanders. And if that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about the NBL than the AFL in, say, 10 years time. It will be just easier to support a local team.

But I follow a lot of sports and not just an 1/2 sport person. Many Tasmanians will continue to support their AFL clubs regardless and some won't even switch from those to a new Tasmanian one.
It seems Vlad has changed his tune about Tassie in the AFL. Comments in the local Muckery paper.

He really is a slag. He is now on some NBL advisory body, & now his boss Larry K who owns the NBL is negotiating a deal for a team & associated development opportunities, Vlad is now sucking up to his boss, pumping the Tassie tyres up when it suits him. What a gutless slag.

No one is interested in you now Vlad. Just STFU you fat goose.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
32,286
29,703
Launceston
AFL Club
Carlton
Well Its hardly a 'choice' if you want to be a professional footballer. They can be professional at cricket & stay here, its about the only sport in that regard.

The AFL stopped paying transfer fees to 'lesser' leagues years ago. So the costs to clubs of providing facilities & coaching remains the clubs cost. SFA from the AFL for the players they pick up.

I mean, really? [/quote]

Its still a choice the player makes. No one marched them across the ditch at gun point. There werent hordes of VFL slavers shipping innocent, unsuspecting taswegian men over to the mainland and forcing them to work in the green fields of victoria. They came willingly. Like the mercenaries I see the Hawks and Roos likened to over here.
 

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,540
3,150
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
1-Its not rape and pillage if your players choose to go.

2-[citation needed]

3-Except they dont. These two sides are being used to drive participation and development in a state historically bereft of it, and by the numbers coming through that seems to be working.

4-The AFL has said on and off for 40 years that it doesnt believe the financial arguments stand up.

5-And tasmanian greed. These players didnt go to the VFL for free. And yet somehow this is all the AFLs fault.

6-League doesnt even need a reason, the commission isnt obliged to accept any new teams into the competition if it doesnt want them.
6 - Not sure if you saw the very first question I asked Telsor, which makes it clear I was ignoring the financial side of things in order to get a clearer picture of his anti-Tasmanian stance...

4 and 6 - Sure, the AFL has said this. They also argued that cutting teams and offering $6m for mergers was the way of the future. They have stances on various things, which have been known to change, and so do many economic experts who disagree as time goes on with AFL viewpoints. They have the final say because they run it - never denied it - but that's not going to stop argument, and nor should it...

1 - Pretty naïve or arrogant or blinkered statement...you can label yourself from these options. Every mainland state has complained about Victorian influence, strong arming, self interest throughout history. Two managed to sleep with the enemy. We, however, were chewed up and spat out. In the mid-1960's, New Norfolk told Essendon to EAD because apparently they were rude when negotiating the recruitment of Peter Hudson, and preferred to deal with the Hawks instead. In my research of the 1930's, I'm reading of the tug of war between Jack Metherall and Geelong, and a few other players caught in transfer scenarios between Melbourne and Launceston. You could do that sort of thing then. Two decades later, the VFL/AFL was drafting and taking the players instead, with no recompense for the affected club. Two states gained control of this meat market through their own AFL sides. Tasmania, however, is simply raided. You can entice players to make a career from footy, good for them - but if the original club, and in this case, entire state, has no say in the matter, then that is footy's equivalent of rape and pillage. Tasmanian footy has been restructured to fit an AFL model that creates players for its comp, but unlike the mainland states, there is no avenue for the fans to enjoy the benefits...

2 - Ok. Sure.

5 - Pro footy players should be able to go and ply their trade in a top market. Nothing wrong with that. Presently, Tasmanians have to go to the mainland. My stance is - if the financial arguments could be overcome, or even for the sake of hypothesis ignored so that we can get an idea of the true preferences of those against, would it be a desirable situation for a Tassie side to get the chance to sort out their sporting grudges as equals in a national comp? As stated, read the first question I asked as a hypothetical of Telsor. As also stated in (1), "Tasmanian footy has been restructured to fit an AFL model that creates players for its comp, but unlike the mainland states, there is no avenue for the fans to enjoy the benefits" - so why the f### don't we get to lobby for this? Tasmania has contributed immensely to national footy and been bent over the table in return, so yes, we're entitled to voice a few demands even if we don't have the power to make them do anything about it...
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,014
8,380
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
6 - Not sure if you saw the very first question I asked Telsor, which makes it clear I was ignoring the financial side of things in order to get a clearer picture of his anti-Tasmanian stance...

4 and 6 - Sure, the AFL has said this. They also argued that cutting teams and offering $6m for mergers was the way of the future. They have stances on various things, which have been known to change, and so do many economic experts who disagree as time goes on with AFL viewpoints. They have the final say because they run it - never denied it - but that's not going to stop argument, and nor should it...

1 - Pretty naïve or arrogant or blinkered statement...you can label yourself from these options. Every mainland state has complained about Victorian influence, strong arming, self interest throughout history. Two managed to sleep with the enemy. We, however, were chewed up and spat out. In the mid-1960's, New Norfolk told Essendon to EAD because apparently they were rude when negotiating the recruitment of Peter Hudson, and preferred to deal with the Hawks instead. In my research of the 1930's, I'm reading of the tug of war between Jack Metherall and Geelong, and a few other players caught in transfer scenarios between Melbourne and Launceston. You could do that sort of thing then. Two decades later, the VFL/AFL was drafting and taking the players instead, with no recompense for the affected club. Two states gained control of this meat market through their own AFL sides. Tasmania, however, is simply raided. You can entice players to make a career from footy, good for them - but if the original club, and in this case, entire state, has no say in the matter, then that is footy's equivalent of rape and pillage. Tasmanian footy has been restructured to fit an AFL model that creates players for its comp, but unlike the mainland states, there is no avenue for the fans to enjoy the benefits...

2 - Ok. Sure.

5 - Pro footy players should be able to go and ply their trade in a top market. Nothing wrong with that. Presently, Tasmanians have to go to the mainland. My stance is - if the financial arguments could be overcome, or even for the sake of hypothesis ignored so that we can get an idea of the true preferences of those against, would it be a desirable situation for a Tassie side to get the chance to sort out their sporting grudges as equals in a national comp? As stated, read the first question I asked as a hypothetical of Telsor. As also stated in (1), "Tasmanian footy has been restructured to fit an AFL model that creates players for its comp, but unlike the mainland states, there is no avenue for the fans to enjoy the benefits" - so why the f### don't we get to lobby for this? Tasmania has contributed immensely to national footy and been bent over the table in return, so yes, we're entitled to voice a few demands even if we don't have the power to make them do anything about it...


I see Ron Joseph has given a gob full to the AFL over the massive handouts to the Suns. When does an 'investment' become a black hole?

I guess the dumping of Gil's stupid AFLX will free up some more cash for their core business, football. Maybe that at least is a start to looking after the game itself instead of trying to create some modern marketing miracle. They have a 170 year old game. Maybe spend some time marketing that instead.
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
1,416
784
AFL Club
GWS
1. Both A. Demetriou & G. McLachlan (in 2018) have previously said (paraphrasing) "... when the next expansion occurs, Tasmania will probably be the next team".
It appears that A. Demetriou, a few days ago, is further strengthening his support for a Tas. 19th team.

(*behind a paywall- can anyone open it?)

2. The 3 major Tas. daily newspapers are mounting a simultaneous campaign for Tas. team Unity by all Tasmanians; & for 50,000+ individual, recorded "pledges" of support for a Tas. team- "...in the hope of winning a provisional licence by the end of this year".


3. SEN Radio Melb. Lyon & Watson Program 30.8

Lyon said Lists could be reduced, if a 19th club is introduced, to "spread the talent"- to "as low as 30 per team".
Also, he said N. Riewoldt, on the Steering C'tee, is very confident Tas. will get its own, new team into the AFL.

T. Watson said "momentum" seems to be moving more quickly for a Tas. 19th team than what the "footy industry expected".
 
Last edited:

Gibbke

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2008
3,540
3,150
FNQ
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
South Launceston, Tassie Tigers
I see Ron Joseph has given a gob full to the AFL over the massive handouts to the Suns. When does an 'investment' become a black hole?

I guess the dumping of Gil's stupid AFLX will free up some more cash for their core business, football. Maybe that at least is a start to looking after the game itself instead of trying to create some modern marketing miracle. They have a 170 year old game. Maybe spend some time marketing that instead.
The Suns and the Tasmanian bid are two opposite ends of the spectrum. The AFL said it would spend "100m or whatever it takes" (Andy's exact words) to establish the GC team, and it's simple maths - put two new sides in the other 2 biggest tv markets aside from Melbourne, meaning a local game every week and an extra match per round, and the tv suits doubled their cash. $100m x2, with a billion dollar improvement on the deal - you just can't beat that for business success, so of course they'll do it again. Even though after 9 seasons the Suns are s**t, it means little until there is a noticeable decline in the Qld tv market, which has had a huge shot in the arm with Brisbane's season, so money will be pumped in ad nauseum as long as the tv execs are happy and paying. It's not a black hole if it helps generate cash, and the suits don't care if it comes through junior development, righteous inclusion or a simple presence in a place they can advertise. I'd be interested to see if tv one day demands a reduction in the fee until the Suns improve, but if ads are selling they won't give a f###...

This is the one thing Tassie just can't give - an incentive for sponsors to throw 9 zero sums of cash around. Nearly every other argument against their inclusion is inconclusive, simply bulls**t, or a matter of your own philosophical standpoint, but at present the GC is of more value to the AFL than Tasmania...
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
1,416
784
AFL Club
GWS
a. A. Demetriou is now supporting an imminent 19th Tasmanian AFL team (which is likely to be created much sooner than most anticipated). It now appears very likely a new Tas. 19th team will be formed.
Demetriou is still very well connected in AFL circles. I doubt he would be making these pro Tas. team public comments, unless he was very confident the AFL Executive wanted a new Tas. team in the near future, AND that it was a "goer" financially etc., & had tentative Commission support. He wouldn't want to embarass himself, or his "mates" in the AFL/on the Commission, if the new team wasn't formed.


b. It appears the appropriate questions are:-

1. when will the 19th Tas. team be created?

2. how many games will be played in Hobart & Launceston? How do we decide the 6/5 split? The city achieving the highest average crowd is allocated 6 home games the following year?
It is common sense the team is based in Hobart.

3. what start-up concessions should the new team receive?

4. what preliminary, mutually agreed, stages/KPI's must be achieved first, before the Tas. AFL team enters?

eg
. strong crowds at Tas. VFL home games (by its new VFL team), & competitive results in the VFL?
. improving Tas. U 18 National Championship results? Tas. U 18 NAB Cup teams regularly winning against top 4 NAB Cup teams?
. minimum no. of "early" paid up members eg minimum 30,000 who have paid a $50 deposit for membership? ($50 refundable if Tas. team fails to materialise).
. locked-in, adequate long term financial commitments from Govt. AND private sponsors? (Tas., an AF heartland state, should only receive AFL funding roughly equal to the smallest Melb. clubs)

5. The AFL, almost certainly, would want a 20th AFL team eventually (for an extra 10th game pw, which will deliver increased Broadcast $). Where would this 20th team be located, & when?
(I don't believe a 20 th team would be added prior to 2030, at least- GC, GWS, & Tas. must be stable, & on "upward trajectories" on their KPI's).

The 19th Tas. AFL team thread should be ONE thread only (there are too many disparate Tas. AFL team threads!). And it should be in the Football Industry Forum, since a new team is, obviously, a football industry issue.

c. The Bidding Consortium for a 19th Tas. team is "getting the economics right" - a crucial consideration.

 
Last edited:

Professor Knowall

Club Legend
Sep 24, 2006
2,547
1,154
Wimmera
AFL Club
Collingwood
The former Woolworths CEO (whose name escaped me) who lives in Tasmania and is on the Tassie AFL bid team was just interviewed on 3AW. He said that at present they are just working to establish that any Tasmanian team would be financially viable and able to stand financially on its own two feet. He believed it will be able to do so but just continually returned to this theme through the interview, so basically that's it sole, or at least major, focus for now.

As for the 2 concurrent threads, I agree this is a Footyindustry topic - but the main board always gets more reading and responses because for whatever reason, many on BF simply don't go beyond the main board and/or own club board. So I'm OK to leave the other thread going on the main board for the larger audience it gets there.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
15,014
8,380
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
The Suns and the Tasmanian bid are two opposite ends of the spectrum. The AFL said it would spend "100m or whatever it takes" (Andy's exact words) to establish the GC team, and it's simple maths - put two new sides in the other 2 biggest tv markets aside from Melbourne, meaning a local game every week and an extra match per round, and the tv suits doubled their cash. $100m x2, with a billion dollar improvement on the deal - you just can't beat that for business success, so of course they'll do it again. Even though after 9 seasons the Suns are s**t, it means little until there is a noticeable decline in the Qld tv market, which has had a huge shot in the arm with Brisbane's season, so money will be pumped in ad nauseum as long as the tv execs are happy and paying. It's not a black hole if it helps generate cash, and the suits don't care if it comes through junior development, righteous inclusion or a simple presence in a place they can advertise. I'd be interested to see if tv one day demands a reduction in the fee until the Suns improve, but if ads are selling they won't give a f###...

This is the one thing Tassie just can't give - an incentive for sponsors to throw 9 zero sums of cash around. Nearly every other argument against their inclusion is inconclusive, simply bulls**t, or a matter of your own philosophical standpoint, but at present the GC is of more value to the AFL than Tasmania...
Yes the 'commercial' imperative.

A cursory look at the tv audience in Qld shows the very poor numbers for qld. For 'some' to say it's fertile ground for AFL expansion just ignore the fact the AFL has had a presence in that market for 30 years. The return for sponsors must be of concern to them.

It matters not what anyone says, but really, what is the cost/benefit for the AFL with 2 teams rather than the 1 they had?

Again it matters not, but people don't go the GC to watch footy. If at all, they're more likely to go & watch a team from 'the south' or the other AFL team they follow. Also clearly they don't watch Qld teams when on TV.

So sure, spend $100mil or $200mil, or whatever.
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,160
23,818
AFL Club
GWS
Yes the 'commercial' imperative.

A cursory look at the tv audience in Qld shows the very poor numbers for qld. For 'some' to say it's fertile ground for AFL expansion just ignore the fact the AFL has had a presence in that market for 30 years. The return for sponsors must be of concern to them.

It matters not what anyone says, but really, what is the cost/benefit for the AFL with 2 teams rather than the 1 they had?

Again it matters not, but people don't go the GC to watch footy. If at all, they're more likely to go & watch a team from 'the south' or the other AFL team they follow. Also clearly they don't watch Qld teams when on TV.

So sure, spend $100mil or $200mil, or whatever.
You think if the Tassie team is as bad as the Suns they will turn out?
 

Top Bottom