Expansion Potential Expansion Markets

[telsor]

At current growth trends, I can't foresee that happening any time soon, and let's be honest, while the Tassie Govt continues handing over millions to two AFL clubs, they aren't going to get a team.

Can't speak for the Suns, but the amount of footy development around west sydney and Southern NSW as a direct result of the giants entering the comp is massive - absolutely no way known the AFL is going to let that slip now - that's worth at least $10 mill per annum to the AFL for the remainder of the century - and the AFL will pay it, don't you worry about that.

I love how you think Tassie giving a couple of clubs money in sponsorship is a massive rort, but the AFL giving GWS ~3 times as much is merely your just deserts and somehow the results of all that money is somehow 'due to GWS'.

Dump GWS, give half the money they take to Tas and add the rest to the already large sum spent on development in NSW, and the game would be both better off in the long term and financially stronger (in both short and long term).

Wont happen, but don't kid yourself that somehow GWS is doing much of anything, when the whole thing is just a conduit for Victorian money. It's like congratulating the tap because the water makes it from the dam to the sink.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

So how many hundreds of thousands Vic supporters do you want to lose from the game?

When Fitzroy was *cough* merged, it's estimated that about a 3rd of their fans were lost to the game. Given that even the smallest Vic clubs would have well over a quarter of a million fans, you're looking at about 100K gone per club.

and of course if you get rid of even 1 Vic club, it'd have significant impact across the country.

1 club gone means no more games in Tas/Cairns/NT (assuming the AFL wants to keep their contracts with MCG/Docklands).

2 means at least one of those contracts are gone, and given that the MCG isn't nearly as expendable, that means bye bye to the AFL owning a billion dollar stadium at Docklands.

There is also the not insignificant detail about how Vic football is the one paying for NSW & QLD, so if you're making cuts there, you have to cut back on supporting those clubs and/or development in those states.


But yeah, get rid of the clubs that are the ones keeping the league financially strong...I'm sure next time Port falls on it's arse and needs a handout, somebody will turn up...surely...

It really still is the VFL isn't it with a few license paying guests & a few created at VFL House for project markets.. SA & WA never sank a dime into footy & still don't i gather, I wonder how many were lost to the game that had no interest in composite teams or loathed Port Adelaide forgive me if I don't cry a river over Fitzroy fans.

 

[telsor]

It really still is the VFL isn't it with a few license paying guests & a few created at VFL House for project markets.. SA & WA never sank a dime into footy & still don't i gather, I wonder how many were lost to the game that had no interest in composite teams or loathed Port Adelaide forgive me if I don't cry a river over Fitzroy fans.

How much do SA & WA currently put into the league?

As for fans lost to composite teams...Where did their original teams go? Are they no longer playing in the same competition they have for a century? WA & SA clubs are all still where they were, and if WA/SA fans didn't prefer the 'VFL' to their local comps, they'd still be there supporting them. Only Vic clubs have been killed off, or 'relocated'.

WA & SA fans were desperate to join the VFL, and now complain about the Victorians in it...

 

[Gigantor]

I love how you think Tassie giving a couple of clubs money in sponsorship is a massive rort, but the AFL giving GWS ~3 times as much is merely your just deserts and somehow the results of all that money is somehow 'due to GWS'.

The key difference is that the AFL can afford it, a private investor securing its future with its own funds.

 

[telsor]

The key difference is that the AFL can afford it, a private investor securing its future with its own funds.

Securing it's future? Considering the 'success' of the Swans (35 years, several bailouts, and still need significant assistance to survive), it seems like a speculative punt AKA throwing good money after bad.

At least you acknowledge it's the AFL driving things and putting the money in this time though rather than your previous crap claim about how all the growth has been the result of GWS.

 

[Gigantor]

Securing it's future? Considering the 'success' of the Swans (35 years, several bailouts, and still need significant assistance to survive), it seems like a speculative punt AKA throwing good money after bad.

At least you acknowledge it's the AFL driving things and putting the money in this time though rather than your previous crap claim about how all the growth has been the result of GWS.

Well yes, it is a result of GWS, and of course the AFL put up the money - do you believe that to be mutually exclusive?

 

[telsor]

Well yes, it is a result of GWS, and of course the AFL put up the money - do you believe that to be mutually exclusive?

No, but it doesn't make them anywhere near equal either.

Ask yourself this.

If GWS was there, but the AFL didn't pour bucket loads of funding into developing the game, both through the club and AFLNSW, would the game in NSW be more or less advanced than if GWS wasn't there and the AFL did provide those funds?

AFL money is essential to the equation, GWS is merely an optional extra which provides a front through which some of the money flows.

 

[madmug]

But remember that AFLTas came in to fix up the mess resulting from Tas trying to run it football across the whole state themselves.

I'm sure Tasmanian's have the administrative capacity to run a club, as you say, it's not rocket surgery, but How well do you think they would balance the needs of the different parts of the state (and perhaps more importantly, be seen to do so)?

In many ways, the politics of football in Tasmania is like the politics of football in the rest of the country. One BIG market (~50% of the total), but if you are perceived to favor them at all (rightly or wrongly), the rest scream about how the administration is supposed to be for the whole state/country and not just Hobart/Vic. The politics of it all would be far tougher than the administration.

Avoiding the realty of the time doesnt make you right. At the same time the state league was getting going, so to was the national growth of the VFL, soon to change to the AFL. Also weekend work & shopping hours extended into all weekend. Tas footy ran smack into these changes but got nothing out of the games growth that other places did. Simplistic comments don't explain the real facts of the time.

 

[Garlic muncher]

No, but it doesn't make them anywhere near equal either.

Ask yourself this.

If GWS was there, but the AFL didn't pour bucket loads of funding into developing the game, both through the club and AFLNSW, would the game in NSW be more or less advanced than if GWS wasn't there and the AFL did provide those funds?

AFL money is essential to the equation, GWS is merely an optional extra which provides a front through which some of the money flows.

AFL funding is needed, as the self anointed guardian of game they should be funding grass roots with every available $$.

The billion $ deals they get should result in a large portion working its way down

 

[telsor]

AFL funding is needed, as the self anointed guardian of game they should be funding grass roots with every available $$.

The billion $ deals they get should result in a large portion working its way down

I'm not questioning the funding, I'm saying claims GWS is responsible for the results are crap.

 

[telsor]

Avoiding the realty of the time doesnt make you right. At the same time the state league was getting going, so to was the national growth of the VFL, soon to change to the AFL. Also weekend work & shopping hours extended into all weekend. Tas footy ran smack into these changes but got nothing out of the games growth that other places did. Simplistic comments don't explain the real facts of the time.

Surely quality administrators would have looked at the lay of the land when trying to set up such a league. Using predictable problems as an excuse doesn't exactly promote the idea of good management.

And BTW, you do/did get benefit from the games growth...However much/little the number is, the AFL's funding of AFLTas is a benefit. The sponsors of Hawthorn & North would also claim those deals are beneficial to Tasmania. Neither of those things would have happened without the game's growth.

 

[madmug]

But remember that AFLTas came in to fix up the mess resulting from Tas trying to run it football across the whole state themselves.

I'm sure Tasmanian's have the administrative capacity to run a club, as you say, it's not rocket surgery, but How well do you think they would balance the needs of the different parts of the state (and perhaps more importantly, be seen to do so)?

In many ways, the politics of football in Tasmania is like the politics of football in the rest of the country. One BIG market (~50% of the total), but if you are perceived to favor them at all (rightly or wrongly), the rest scream about how the administration is supposed to be for the whole state/country and not just Hobart/Vic. The politics of it all would be far tougher than the administration.

And how many time have I told you just that.?
The decision making of the AFL is as much 'political' as it is anything else. The politics of the power of the Victorian football lobby. The power of the politics of the Victorian economy, of which the AFL represents a powerful tourist & economic part.
Thanks for finally admitting it. It is after all, pretty bloody obvious.

 

[telsor]

And how many time have I told you just that.?
The decision making of the AFL is as much 'political' as it is anything else. The politics of the power of the Victorian football lobby. The power of the politics of the Victorian economy, of which the AFL represents a powerful tourist & economic part.
Thanks for finally admitting it. It is after all, pretty bloody obvious.

Nah, just because I used the word politics doesn't mean I'm talking about the AFLs decision not to give Tas a club (so far).

That was based on the $$$$ Tas can't contribute to the league.

 

[madmug]

Surely quality administrators would have looked at the lay of the land when trying to set up such a league. Using predictable problems as an excuse doesn't exactly promote the idea of good management.

And BTW, you do/did get benefit from the games growth...However much/little the number is, the AFL's funding of AFLTas is a benefit. The sponsors of Hawthorn & North would also claim those deals are beneficial to Tasmania. Neither of those things would have happened without the game's growth.

More garbage. The position of football in & from Tasmania has fallen significantly over the time the AFL has existed. The Hawthorn / North Melbourne feeding frenzy has nothing to do with Tasmanian football. Its has done nothing for it. If anything its added to the demise & poor position of Tasmanian football as it stands now. Such things as the 1990 state of origin team was a highlight. The Tasmanian state teams efforts against the WAFL & SANFL in the mid 1990's is a long past highlight. The AFL dominate the game. They've 'managed' Tasmanian football since the 1990's. They are the keepers of the game. They are responsible for the withering of the game here.
So dont kid yourself.

 

[madmug]

Nah, just because I used the word politics doesn't mean I'm talking about the AFLs decision not to give Tas a club (so far).

That was based on the $$$$ Tas can't contribute to the league.

Quite pathetic.
I thought you'd be better than that.

 

[The_Wookie]

Avoiding the realty of the time doesnt make you right. At the same time the state league was getting going, so to was the national growth of the VFL, soon to change to the AFL. Also weekend work & shopping hours extended into all weekend. Tas footy ran smack into these changes but got nothing out of the games growth that other places did. Simplistic comments don't explain the real facts of the time.

Tasmania appears to have been recieving almost as much game development funding as QLD until queenslands funds took off in 2001.

AFL Game Development Funding

1999

2000

2001

Theres no state by state funding in the annual reports after this.

 

[madmug]

Tasmania appears to have been recieving almost as much game development funding as QLD until queenslands funds took off in 2001.

AFL Game Development Funding

1999

2000

2001

Theres no state by state funding in the annual reports after this.

No figures would show the boost certain areas have received just by having an AFL club. The media attention to the game. The professional boost of an AFL club into the surrounding football community.
No such boost to Tasmania.

 

[Gigantor]

No, but it doesn't make them anywhere near equal either.

Ask yourself this.

If GWS was there, but the AFL didn't pour bucket loads of funding into developing the game, both through the club and AFLNSW, would the game in NSW be more or less advanced than if GWS wasn't there and the AFL did provide those funds?

AFL money is essential to the equation, GWS is merely an optional extra which provides a front through which some of the money flows.

GWS is the vehicle the AFL is using - and it is working.

We go a decade with a handful of players from NSW being drafted, and all of a sudden, in one year, GWS sources the entirety of its draft selections from NSW (plus a few others have gone to other clubs).

It's working - it's working like crazy - it's frightening how well it's working (certainly scaring the bejeezus out of people like Eddie).

On top of that, GWS must be very, very close to being the top rating club in the AFL on Fox - it's certainly rating well above the AFL Fox average.

GWS deserves every cent it's getting, plus some.

 

[telsor]

Quite pathetic.
I thought you'd be better than that.

Sadly I didn't expect better of you than your usual, fact/logic free, 'it's politics' argument.

I'm assuming you also also belive the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism, but hey, you've got a really stylish tinfoil hat, so it's all good, right.

 

[telsor]

GWS is the vehicle the AFL is using - and it is working.

We go a decade with a handful of players from NSW being drafted, and all of a sudden, in one year, GWS sources the entirety of its draft selections from NSW (plus a few others have gone to other clubs).

It's working - it's working like crazy - it's frightening how well it's working (certainly scaring the bejeezus out of people like Eddie).

On top of that, GWS must be very, very close to being the top rating club in the AFL on Fox - it's certainly rating well above the AFL Fox average.

GWS deserves every cent it's getting, plus some.

Firstly let me start by agreeing with you...I have no issue with the money going to GWS.

The bullshit is the claims that you're drving the growth, and the on field assistance they give you. Surely you realise your club is just an AFL shill and any 'success' you have reflects more on them than it does on your club.

 

[madmug]

Sadly I didn't expect better of you than your usual, fact/logic free, 'it's politics' argument.

I'm assuming you also also belive the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism, but hey, you've got a really stylish tinfoil hat, so it's all good, right.

You've given us that crap before.

I certainly was wrong when I assumed you would be better than that rubbish. Obviously not.

 

[Gigantor]

Firstly let me start by agreeing with you...I have no issue with the money going to GWS.

The bullshit is the claims that you're drving the growth, and the on field assistance they give you. Surely you realise your club is just an AFL shill and any 'success' you have reflects more on them than it does on your club.

No success to date - all I'm seeing is six years of hard work (going back to the NEAFL side), great trading and a team which is starting to click.

Nothing is guaranteed, and just as the AFL bailing out other clubs has not necessarily meant any success for those clubs, it doesn't guarantee anything for the Giants.

But god willing, we'll continue to work hard, continue being the most proficient traders (already have three first round picks in this year's draft), and with a little bit of luck, we might one day win our first final. At that point, all we'll be able to say is that we've won half as many finals as Richmond has over the last 33 seasons.

Just to give you an idea of some of the astute trading and recruitment we have done, picking up players who were available to all clubs:
Mummy
Stevie J
Heath Shaw
Sam Reid

Richmond could have picked up all or some of those players, and they may have been a touch more competitive yesterday, but you know, they didn't.

I've just been talking about Himmelberg on the GWS board, an academy player picked up with pick 17 (GWS had to match Adelaide's bid for him) - and we can now see why Adelaide bid for him.

Himmelberg is from the Riverina, but spent a season in Canberra playing for Eastlake before being drafted by GWS. Would someone like Himmelberg have come to light without the existence of the Academy - I have my doubts. Not many Canberra footballers have been drafted over the past decade.

But going back to Himmelberg, clubs could have bid for him at any time. In fact, Richmond could have bid for him at pick 16 instead of picking up Rioli. They have gone for Rioli, and I wish him and the tiges all the best, but lots and lots of different decisions have been made over the last few years, some good, some bad, but I'm seeing some of the Giants' decisions to be pretty damn good ones.

Re Richmond, you need to encourage your club to start making good decisions. I was amongst the Manuka crowd yesterday, and I cannot find the words to describe the sheer ineptitude of a Richmond side which has made finals the last few seasons.

The good news is that this year's draft is rich in talent (even if GWS will take a greater share of it than other clubs).

 

[jatz14]

Firstly let me start by agreeing with you...I have no issue with the money going to GWS.

The bullshit is the claims that you're drving the growth, and the on field assistance they give you. Surely you realise your club is just an AFL shill and any 'success' you have reflects more on them than it does on your club.

Not sure how you can say that without access to an alternative reality where gws never happened. GWS is a factor, deciding whether it is major or minor when there are many interrelated factors at play is an enormous challenge. It would need a pretty big study as a base for a start, the sort the AFL may (hopefully) have done.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

You've given us that crap before.

I certainly was wrong when I assumed you would be better than that rubbish. Obviously not.

Why don't you prove me wrong by providing some facts for a change?

 

[telsor]

No success to date - all I'm seeing is six years of hard work (going back to the NEAFL side), great trading and a team which is starting to click.

Yes, 6 years of hard work, mostly done by the AFL and their appointees, paid for by the AFL (who get it mostly those same Vic clubs you despise and claim are out to get you).

Nothing is guaranteed, and just as the AFL bailing out other clubs has not necessarily meant any success for those clubs, it doesn't guarantee anything for the Giants.

No, no guarantees, but when you start the 100m race 5m ahead, then it's hardly a fair competition is it?

But god willing, we'll continue to work hard, continue being the most proficient traders (already have three first round picks in this year's draft), and with a little bit of luck, we might one day win our first final. At that point, all we'll be able to say is that we've won half as many finals as Richmond has over the last 33 seasons.

Just to give you an idea of some of the astute trading and recruitment we have done, picking up players who were available to all clubs:
Mummy
Stevie J
Heath Shaw
Sam Reid

Richmond could have picked up all or some of those players, and they may have been a touch more competitive yesterday, but you know, they didn't.

If only we had the extra salary cap space you do...Or all the picks you get from having been handed so many first round picks that you can't even play them all, but they're still worth a lot in trade.

I've just been talking about Himmelberg on the GWS board, an academy player picked up with pick 17 (GWS had to match Adelaide's bid for him) - and we can now see why Adelaide bid for him.

He was the 16th player picked, and you didn't pick him up with pick 16 (or 17), instead you used picks 48,50,55 & 59. In all practical measures, you got a first round player for FREE because you weren't going to use those picks anyway (the last pick you used was pick 41).

Even if it had just been a straight pick, you would have got a player Adelaide thought was worth pick 16 for pick 21.

Himmelberg is from the Riverina, but spent a season in Canberra playing for Eastlake before being drafted by GWS. Would someone like Himmelberg have come to light without the existence of the Academy - I have my doubts. Not many Canberra footballers have been drafted over the past decade.

He was originally from a place called Mangoplah, which is just south of Wagga. I think you'll find a few players have been drafted from there in the past, long before GWS existed, so AFL/VFL scouts definitely operated around there. As for playing with Eastlake...well, ~50 years ago a guy call Jesaulenko played for that club...What a shame that without GWS he never got discovered.

Regardless, the supposed theory of the academies is to get players who wouldn't otherwise be playing...I think a guy who south of Wagga who went to Canberra to play the game was part of the game already. Why the hell is he considered eligable?

But going back to Himmelberg, clubs could have bid for him at any time. In fact, Richmond could have bid for him at pick 16 instead of picking up Rioli. They have gone for Rioli, and I wish him and the tiges all the best, but lots and lots of different decisions have been made over the last few years, some good, some bad, but I'm seeing some of the Giants' decisions to be pretty damn good ones.

Sure, we could bid...but the academy clubs would just go over the top of us. The point of the draft being in reverse order is to help the clubs that do worse by giving them more talent...Except for the Northern clubs, who just jump in anyway. Richmond came 8th last year, which should mean we got the 11 pick (being the 11th worst side), instead we got the 15th pick. Northern clubs got 4 EXTRA picks in the top 15, and look like doing something similar again this year (and probably every year) you wonder why people think it's perverting the competition?

The good news is that this year's draft is rich in talent (even if GWS will take a greater share of it than other clubs).

And therein lies the problem...a club that needs it less than most gets far more than most...and you think you're not being gifted success.