Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 24

[Grave Danger]

#Malcom had a dream...

North Melbourne great’s bold Kangaroos prediction

“You know the cycle is turning.”

www.sen.com.au

 

[1954]

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her politics Lambie continually presents herself as a loud mouth feral who could make kern sound like a Rhode's scholar by comparison, and what was the point of that faux fur, was she trying to show some allegiance to the original Tasmanians?

 

[Alberton Proud]

#Malcom had a dream...

North Melbourne great’s bold Kangaroos prediction

“You know the cycle is turning.”

www.sen.com.au

Stick to flogging caravans Malcom

 

[malcheski]

#Malcom had a dream...

North Melbourne great’s bold Kangaroos prediction

“You know the cycle is turning.”

www.sen.com.au

norf wont make it to 2027 Malcom

 

[Stryke]

I don't see how the claim to have 50k members and average 14k at home games

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Poo Eckert]

More scumming an amateur footy field than a pond

 

[Waspy79]

Gil saying today that the AFL will contribute $360m to the Hobart stadium is a sickening lie

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The 2023 AFL season is a two-speed league.

In the top 15, we have the true contenders and a bunch of teams that can challenge anyone on their day - all the way down to the 14th-placed Swans (well, when they’re not injury-ravaged) and 15th-placed Giants (who’ve been competitive every week bar this one). All but GWS have a percentage above 97 (so they’re basically average or better)

Then there’s the bottom three. North Melbourne, West Coast and Hawthorn share four wins between them - two came against each other - plus a horrific percentage around 60. These teams are bad. Very bad; they lost by a combined 194 points in Round 9. And those blowout losses are becoming a weekly problem.

“They’re (the Hawks) one of three just ultimately dreadful teams playing football in 2023, and they might be the best of the three,” veteran journalist Damian Barrett said on the Sunday Footy Show.

“Essendon has got the benefit of playing West Coast and North Melbourne twice in the course of the season, they come in consecutive weeks (in Rounds 11 and 12, and Rounds 21 and 22), and you’d think that’s just a guaranteed 16 premiership points.

Port Adelaide champion Kane Cornes added: “This threatens to derail the season somewhat because you’ve got three out of the nine games (each weekend) effectively ruined, when they don’t play each other.”

But while ex-Richmond and Bulldogs star Nathan Brown protested “that’s the way the game is - you’re always going to have sides down the bottom that are easy to beat, you’re always going to have sides up the top, it’s just the nature of the game,” it is uncommon to have three terrible teams instead of just one or two.

While their percentages will change over the course of the season - especially with more games to come against each other - as it stands, we’ve never had a terrible trio like Hawthorn, North Melbourne and West Coast in the AFL era.

“It just feels like to me the gap is bigger than it’s ever been between the strong teams, the teams on the rise and those down the bottom of the ladder,” Fox Footy commentator Anthony Hudson said on The First Crack. “I’m just worried we’re going to have a lot of predictable games between now and the end of the season, there’s still 14 weeks to go. We’ve got the extra week, it’s going to seem longer than ever.”

TEAMS WITH A PERCENTAGE BELOW 65 (Final home & away ladder, AFL era)

2 teams - 2022 (West Coast, North Melbourne), 2018 (Gold Coast, Carlton), 2016 (Brisbane, Essendon), 2013 (Melbourne, GWS), 2012 (Gold Coast, GWS), 2011 (Port Adelaide, Gold Coast)

1 team - 2020 (Adelaide), 2019 (Gold Coast), 2015 (Carlton), 2014 (St Kilda), 2008 (Melbourne), 1997 (Melbourne), 1996 (Fitzroy), 1995 (Fitzroy), 1993 (Sydney), 1992 (Brisbane Bears)

No teams - 2021, 2017, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1994, 1991, 1990

Currently in 2023: North Melbourne (62.9%), West Coast (60.5%), Hawthorn (60%)

‘Gap is bigger than it’s ever’: 33-year AFL low that’s set to only get worse... and Pick 1 Cup it creates

‘Threatens to derail the season’: 33-year AFL low that’ll only get worse... and Pick 1 Cup it creates

www.foxsports.com.au

I was looking at that today and if you drew the line at under 70% then 2012 is the worst season. 4 clubs admittedly 2 were the expansion clubs

We finished on 78.9% and weren't anywhere as bad as 2011. We just weren't fit enough, had poor medical rehab and fitness resources, with a lot of decent young players who didn't get out on the ground long enough. After Rd 10, and before the byes started we were 4-6 with 93.4%, that's not basket case stuff. We lost 4 of those 6 games by 4 goals or less, running out of legs in the last quarter and 2 games by 6 and a bit goals. In Rd 11 the Hawks touched us up by 46 pts at home and then Rd 12 at Marvel, Westhoff put his knee through Schulz's spleen and he misses the next 7 games and it was only then that the wheels started to fall off.

Ladder 9th to 18th after Rd 23 ....................... ladder 9th to 18th after Rd 10 before the byes started.

...........

 

[JUSTWORK]

Gil saying today that the AFL will contribute $360m to the Hobart stadium is a sickening lie

Why do they need a new stadium ? Blunstone has a capacity of 20K but lets spend over $700 Million so we get a new stadium with 3k extra seat 10 Minutes away from Blunstone.

 

[VineValerian]

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her politics Lambie continually presents herself as a loud mouth feral who could make kern sound like a Rhode's scholar by comparison, and what was the point of that faux fur, was she trying to show some allegiance to the original Tasmanians?

Tasmanian Tiger pelt.

 

[Festerz]

Why do they need a new stadium ? Blundstone has a capacity of 20K but lets spend over $700 Million so we get a new stadium with 3k extra seat 10 Minutes away from Blundstone.

There are arguments for and against a new stadium in Hobart.

But my view is this.

It is for Tasmanians to decide.

After all, it will be a large chunk of their money that will be spent on developing land on prime riverfront land close to the CBD that has multiple alternative uses.

The AFL is contributing just $15 million of the estimated $715m plus for the new stadium, which equates to around 2% of the total cost = 2/3 of feck all in the scheme of things. The rise and fall rounding error in the construction cost is more than that.

AFL House should make its decision on the entry of a Tasmanian team solely on the basis of what's good for a National Competition - NOT playing politics on making a brand new stadium with a roof a condition of entry.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Why do they need a new stadium ? Blunstone has a capacity of 20K but lets spend over $700 Million so we get a new stadium with 3k extra seat 10 Minutes away from Blunstone.

Yeah why wouldn't they use the stadium thats impossible to upgrade because across the road from it are private houses. Access to the stadium is absolutely terrible, even for just the 6k crowd that was seen on the weekend.

And is only allowed to have the lights on for 10 events a year. 5 of which are taken up by Hobary Hurricanes BBL matches.

Yeah why, don't they use that stadium...

 

[Econopower]

It is standard practice to subject new major infrastructure projects to a cost-benefit analysis.

AFAIK, no such (independent) analysis has been undertaken for a new stadium in Hobart.

The comparisons I’ve seen with Perth or the upgrades to Adelaide Oval are not especially useful because of the huge size and economic disparities of the cities/states.

There is also a pretty large body of evidence from overseas to suggest that most new stadia do not generate large enough public benefits to justify governments footing the bill, particularly when the costs typically significantly exceed the initial estimates.

This is an easy request for the AFL because they are not wearing the financial risk. For a comparatively poor state to make such a commitment, at a time when the interest servicing costs will be extremely high, is a big deal requiring much more scrutiny than we have seen so far.

I won’t pass judgment until and unless rigorous analysis has been completed. But calling anyone opposed to the building of the stadium under the current requirements a NIMBY, is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

We should have just got Mexico to pay for it

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Yeah why wouldn't they use the stadium thats impossible to upgrade because across the road from it are private houses. Access to the stadium is absolutely terrible, even for just the 6k crowd that was seen on the weekend.

And is only allowed to have the lights on for 10 events a year. 5 of which are taken up by Hobary Hurricanes BBL matches.

Yeah why, don't they use that stadium...

And if they can't get the support to build a new stadium when their ability to get an AFL team is on the line, what hope do they have of getting later necessary upgrades? (And obviously those upgraded would be needed much sooner if they use an existing old stadium).

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Also I find it gross how the same Vic's who argue black and blue that every Vic team fan has a God given right for their team to remain in the comp, then turn around and argue that Tassie fans don't deserve their own team because the politics is challenging.

If they fought as hard and the AFL spent as much money on a Tassie team as they have keeping Vic minnows afloat then they would have had a team years ago.

Tassie > North or Saints IMO.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TeeKray]

A shiny new stadium is such a weird thing to protest in the context of the enormous wastage in state and federal spending that anyone with half an ear to the ground knows all about.

 

[jakey]

A shiny new stadium is such a weird thing to protest in the context of the enormous wastage in state and federal spending that anyone with half an ear to the ground knows all about.

Especially given what it means for tourism and city centre revitalisation. Look at what MONA did for Hobart and its appeal as a destination. An AFL team and decent stadium will do the same. So short sighted. It isn't a zero sum game of housing vs stadium

 

[Festerz]

AFAIK, no such (independent) analysis has been undertaken for a new stadium in Hobart.

The comparisons I’ve seen with Perth or the upgrades to Adelaide Oval are not especially useful because of the huge size and economic disparities of the cities/states.

I'm sure an 'independent' CBA analysis of the new stadium has or will be commissioned by the Tasmanian Government. Also sure that, like all sporting related studies commissioned by governments, the results produced will match the expectations and assumptions of the organisation that has commissioned the analysis . The result will be extremely favourable to undertaking the project.

But a reminder that the AFL has committed to playing just 7 games a year at the new Hobart stadium once built with 4 games a year at a redeveloped York Park stadium in Launceston.

Contrast that to the 24 AFL games played a year at Adelaide Oval and Optus Stadium. In cities that have the population to attract a host of other major sporting and entertainment events that a city with just 200,000 people and limited air travel connectivity (no international flights for example) just can't.

But in the end it is a decision for the Tasmanian people to decide. Democracy manifest!

 

[Grave Danger]

Opponents of the Hobart AFL stadium have a 'nuclear option' in the state budget

As the game involving the political football — aka Hobart's AFL stadium — enters what could be the final quarter, Tasmania may find itself facing a constitutional crisis, writes Adam Langenberg.

www.abc.net.au

AFL games are played at a stadium 3km away — so why does Hobart need a brand new football arena?

Tasmanians opposed to a new stadium at Macquarie Point have been at pains to point out that AFL has been played at Bellerive Oval for years. So, why couldn't they continue there and save millions? The answers are a little more complex than you might think.

www.abc.net.au

 

[jakey]

I'm sure an 'independent' CBA analysis of the new stadium has or will be commissioned by the Tasmanian Government. Also sure that, like all sporting related studies commissioned by governments, the results produced will match the expectations and assumptions of the organisation that has commissioned the analysis . The result will be extremely favourable to undertaking the project.

But a reminder that the AFL has committed to playing just 7 games a year at the new Hobart stadium once built with 4 games a year at a redeveloped York Park stadium in Launceston.

Contrast that to the 24 AFL games played a year at Adelaide Oval and Optus Stadium. In cities that have the population to attract a host of other major sporting and entertainment events that a city with just 200,000 people and limited air travel connectivity (no international flights for example) just can't.

But in the end it is a decision for the Tasmanian people to decide. Democracy manifest!

Jeremy Rockliff obviously the chap waiting to receive Gill's limp penis.

 

[GremioPower]

To me club is more important. I'd rather footy go extinct and Port Adelaide took up tiddlywinks, than Port going extinct. If Koch disagrees, he's not fit to be chairman

In this particular stance, Koch is right.

Without football, Port would need to become something else.

 

[Econopower]

A shiny new stadium is such a weird thing to protest in the context of the enormous wastage in state and federal spending that anyone with half an ear to the ground knows all about.

Historically, infrastructure has been one of the major areas of expenditure wastage, in large part because choices are politicised and not sufficiently scrutinised on economic grounds.

 

[Econopower]

Also sure that, like all sporting related studies commissioned by governments, the results produced will match the expectations and assumptions of the organisation that has commissioned the analysis

This is why CBAs need to be undertaken by an independent authority, and their results and assumptions published transparently. It is far too easy for governments to exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the costs, including the opportunity costs. Certainly some of numbers I’ve seen look optimistic…