Opinion Non-Crows AFL 13: Offseason

[1970crow]

I will die on the hill that Tasmania is not less financially viable than St Kilda, and every economic argument for dropping support for the Tasmanian team could be applied to St Kilda

I’d dump Roos and Saints in a heartbeat. But the AFL Commission won’t be doing that.

 

[jenny61_99]

I will die on the hill that Tasmania is not less financially viable than St Kilda, and every economic argument for dropping support for the Tasmanian team could be applied to St Kilda

Having spent the last ten days with a bunch of Taswegians in New Zealand, it became apparent that this a very contentious issue within their own ranks. Avid sporties, business and tourist folk were all for it while the other half felt the money could be better spent on essential services. It’s not that they are not more worthy of a team as to whether their community can actually afford said team, and at what cost.

 

[Bovo]

AFL doesn’t have unlimited funds and it’s already propping up AFLW and half the AFL clubs. Adding Tassie does nothing to improve their bottom line. The overall financial health of the game comes first and Tassie being added doesn’t move the dial favourably. I’d happily see 2 of the poorest Melbourne clubs cut, but we know that’s not happening.

And I think there’s serious doubt about the degree that we’re a genuine national competition.

It’s long term investment it’s not like the AFL is suffering either. it made an operating surplus of $45.4 mil last year. The AFLW is slowly becoming more popular and in time it will hold its own and the AFL profit will increase again. It knows it can still create an enormous profit while “Propping up” certain clubs and The AFLW.

 

[Scorpus]

Having spent the last ten days with a bunch of Taswegians in New Zealand, it became apparent that this a very contentious issue within their own ranks. Avid sporties, business and tourist folk were all for it while the other half felt the money could be better spent on essential services. It’s not that they are not more worthy of a team as to whether their community can actually afford said team, and at what cost.

The AFL should bankroll their side like they have done for St Kilda forever

 

[Mostyn]

Doesn't pass any economic cost v benefit analysis for an enclosed stadium.

Imo, Tasmania are more deserving than Gold Coast.

Are we really a national competition if one of our football states has no representation?

It passes a cost vs benefit analysis from a Crows perspective.

The existence of that stadium makes the club less likely to be a financial drain on the rest of us.

Whether it's worth it to the Tasmanian people is for them to decide. They're paying the capital cost, not us.

Tasmanians.arent owed a team if they can't support it. Gold Coast has been fantastic for the game - look how strong AFL is becoming in SE Qld. There's stacks of kids playing the game now who will.be lifelong supporters.

 

[Mostyn]

I will die on the hill that Tasmania is not less financially viable than St Kilda, and every economic argument for dropping support for the Tasmanian team could be applied to St Kilda

That's fine, except one already exists and the other doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

 

[Mostyn]

The AFL should bankroll their side like they have done for St Kilda forever

Or that should bankroll neither. Adding another unsustainable team doesn't help anyone

 

[DJ75]

Nowadays, nobody accepts an apology; they want blood. Look at Rankine for instance, as he stepped off his flight, he gave an honest apology, acknowledging the hurt his words had caused (which is ****ing bullshit) and next day he was derided for the tone in his voice when he gave the apology and that he should give a proper one (Jon ****head Ralph).

All he had to do was say he was sorry to the people he offended by having that guest on. It isn't a "if you were offended" line but I sometimes wonder what folk want because it isn't an apology, even if that's what they say it is.

Yes, Tredders is batshit crazy but so are most of the population as far as I can see.

It used to be about 4%, it grew to 7% and now sits around 10%. This is all thanks to the billionaires who are actively encouraging stupidity, hate, division and conspiracy theories through their domination of the media people see and hear.

 

[DJ75]

Or that should bankroll neither. Adding another unsustainable team doesn't help anyone

At one point or another the AFL have bankrolled about half the competition, all while the competition grows and they consistently make healthy profits. One more won't matter.

 

[Scorpus]

That's fine, except one already exists and the other doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

I think it's the right decision to fold St Kilda to create Tasmania

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think it's the right decision to fold St Kilda to create Tasmania

Ideally would fold 3 weakest teams for Tasmania... but i will take 1.

 

[Mostyn]

I think it's the right decision to fold St Kilda to create Tasmania

To be honest, I wonder if they'd have the legal ability to do that

 

[Scorpus]

To be honest, I wonder if they'd have the legal ability to do that

Are they legally obligated to bankroll them?

They would collapse without AFL support

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Are they legally obligated to bankroll them?

They would collapse without AFL support

AFL is currently obligated to an 18 team competition for TV rights... so wouldn't matter if Tasmania came in for Saints or Roos.

 

[Soggy2112]

Tasmanians should not be blackmailed by the AFL over an enclosed stadium.

There have been plenty of AFL games in Tasmania previously.

It’s a condition of the license. The AFL is happy with the status quo, no skin off their nose.

In my opinion, the federal government should step in and remind the AFL that they are a tax exempt organisation because they supposedly serve the community. If the AFL wants to keep that status then they should start acting like one. Blackmailing a state government (and by extension its citizens) into paying for a stadium that it does not want is not the behaviour of a community organisation.

Tasmania should have a team in the national competition, and Bellerive Oval is a viable option as a home ground. Building a new stadium with a roof at this stage is not about serving the community, it’s about maximising profits for the AFL. If the AFL wants to behave like a corporation then they can be taxed as one. Otherwise, commit to bringing the Tasmanian team in, stadium or not, and then work on negotiating for a new home ground/redevelopments.

 

[daniel_4tw]

How anyone could have watched our Hawks game this year (or literally any game in Tassie) should know why a roof is needed.

The climate is not appropriate for professional sport. 6 goal breezes, players missing from 10m out etc, players kicking the ball only for it to fly back into their arms. It’s a literal tactic in Tas to go full defence each quarter you’re against the wind. It’s crazy and it’s no surprise Hawks have such a good record there.

 

[Soggy2112]

How anyone could have watched our Hawks game this year (or literally any game in Tassie) should know why a roof is needed.

The climate is not appropriate for professional sport. 6 goal breezes, players missing from 10m out etc, players kicking the ball only for it to fly back into their arms. It’s a literal tactic in Tas to go full defence each quarter you’re against the wind. It’s crazy and it’s no surprise Hawks have such a good record there.

We’re a bit precious in the AFL sometimes.

The Indian cricket team is happy to play at Bellerive Oval.
The NFL is happy to play in the snow.
The EPL allows games to be played at some sub par venues at times.

I agree, long term the Tasmania team should be looking to build a new stadium, but A) a roof is not a necessity, and B) Bellerive Oval is a perfectly viable option for now

 

[jackster83]

How anyone could have watched our Hawks game this year (or literally any game in Tassie) should know why a roof is needed.

The climate is not appropriate for professional sport. 6 goal breezes, players missing from 10m out etc, players kicking the ball only for it to fly back into their arms. It’s a literal tactic in Tas to go full defence each quarter you’re against the wind. It’s crazy and it’s no surprise Hawks have such a good record there.

You could say the same for Ballarat. That ground should never be used for matches played for premiership points.

 

[1970crow]

The AFL should bankroll their side like they have done for St Kilda forever

They will be bankrolling their side, that’s a given, they just want to reduce the burden. Getting someone else to pay for the infrastructure reduces the burden and if they can host a concert at the next Adele tour, it’ll be less of a burden. All paid by someone else. It’s not rocket surgery.

 

[Bovo]

Are they legally obligated to bankroll them?

They would collapse without AFL support

Remember when Port were on life support too by both AFL and SANFL? Things change

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

.

That might be me done with the AFL. Another gimmick no one wants or asked for, but the league knows it will generate money so they go ahead and do it anyway.

 

[Crow-eater]

They just can’t leave the game alone.

 

[Scorpus]

Horrible idea with typical AFL gaslighting to say it's a "wildcard round" and not a simple 10 team finals structure

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

.

That might be me done with the AFL. Another gimmick no one wants or asked for, but the league knows it will generate money so they go ahead and do it anyway.

Basically prevents teams 7 & 8 to do any damage in the finals.

Teams can now play finals with a losing record.

 

[Scorpus]

Does the AFL know what a "wildcard" even is?

A known matchup is not a wildcard

This is Damien Barrett "Sliding Doors" all over again