TAS relocation rumours?

[SweetLeftFoot]

Dude, you've really missed the point.

 

[NTRabbit]

I agree that Port will never be relocated. Adelaide will continue to have 2 AFL teams, and unlike Perth which could support a third team due to its booming population and economy, will always have 2 teams, as that would be the optimum number of AFL teams in Adelaide.

I would think that the AFL would do all it can do to support Port, and if port fails, SANFL will use the licence to have a more broad based adelaide team that will be able to match the off-field support and revenues of the Crows

Exactly. Even if Port folds, the second AFL licence is such a money spinner for the SANFL that there is precisely zero chance they would pawn it back to the AFL for a one off cash injection - they'll simply form a new, broader based team.

There is absolutely no threat to any non-Victorian team, not Port, not GWS. If a team relocates, it will be Victorian, and it will be the weakest member of the herd.

As for the Bulldogs and Western Melbourne, I think the AFL might start asking questions as to why the sole team representing a large piece of the city, one of the largest growth areas in the country and currently in their best on field run in decades are only barely scraping ahead of two teams - North and the Demons - with no distinctive home areas, historical or otherwise, to draw fans from. It's all well and good to say the AFL will never move you because you occupy that great area, but how long will they put up with you doing nothing with it?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

aThere is absolutely no threat to any non-Victorian team, not Port, not GWS. If a team relocates, it will be Victorian, and it will be the weakest member of the herd.

Again, the enormous flaw in thinking that ruins these discussions.

A team will have to CHOOSE to go. It may not be the 'weakest' team.

And anyway, you can make a case for a variety of clubs being 'weakest' depending on what metric you use.

 

[NTRabbit]

A team will have to CHOOSE to go.

Choosing between life and death is still a choice, and one the team will get to make.

As for weakest, there are only a small number of Melbourne teams who are consistently at the bottom of most metrics you choose to use - Melbourne, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs.

Hawthorn may drop off in members and crowds with the team performances, but their current 'bandwagon' situation demonstrates a capacity that the above three have not - when things are good on the field, they are great off the field.

 

[Tas]

There is a pretty general consensus amongst supporters of all teams but North that they would be the prime candidate. Obviously they disagree.

Firstly, AFL can not force clubs to move. Just so we get that clear first. They can withdraw support, that is the only thing they can do. They can put a sweet deal on the table but it would require a 75% member vote to relocate and there is no way they will get 75%.

So the question to North supporters out there:

If the Tassie team was definitely going to be a relocated team, who do you think would be the prime candidate and why?

I don't know, a lot depends on who is wobbly around the time they are looking to create a side. A lot of sides that look safe now are safe only because they are in premiership contention phase of their cycle and it has artificially swelled membership numbers and attendance and is given them a much better schedule than they would get when they cycle out of that phase.

The question is who is going to be on a low ebb in the period from 5 years from now to 10 years from now. Being on the up, on-field, can cover up some pretty big gaps that are more visible and obvious when you are on the down side of the cycle.

My breakdown of candidates is as follows:

North - Have already shown they will be very difficult to relocate anywhere. However AFL could contrive a situation where given their lack of support and funds they are left with little option.

I don't think relocation will work, at all, if it is at the end of a gun barrel. The club will want to go there voluntarily and make things work with the Tasmanian people. You just can't move it and they will come. It is a change of relationship, the club has to accept the new home and new supporters and the people have to accept the club.

It will largely come down to the ability to generate revenue and keep up with the cost of supporting an AFL club. Some clubs are not really that much more profitable than us and many a lot worse than us when you take out pokie revenue and I think it is dangerous to rely on pokie revenue, can see them being banned from residential suburbs, and/or heavily taxed in the not-too distant future.

I don't necessarily think it will be something hostile. Hawthorn, who already play 4 games there might be offered co-location and move the games up from 4 to 8 and play 3 big games at MCG and give members home game access to 8 guaranteed Melbourne away games.

I don't think Kennett will be happy to see all his development work gone for nothing and the boon of some other club who walks in and bags it for free.

The biggest mistake the AFL made in trying to relocate us was not accepting co-location. imo co-location will eventually become relocation, but gives you the time to ease into the relationship. If they can get a brand new team that is more desirable, if it must be relocation I think gradual relocation is the only way it would work unless you just piss off all the existing Melbourne based supporters.

 

[TimmehJC"]

Where does the extra home game come from?
Even if the comp goes to 24 rounds, we move one to Tassie, still 7 home games.
With the two new clubs, the extra away game will be interstate.

And, if they stick with 22 rounds, one extra Tas game would mean two less games in Melbourne,

Yeah wow, i stuffed that up didn't I. Sorry. Look I'm anti Tassie anyway, the sooner we cut back the better

 

[Royal Flush]

In fact, did you not just recently lose some of your pokie revenue after the State Government auction when Mathieson ****ed you over?

This is why you are almost certainly sniffing round this new Tassie games push.

The delusion expressed by some of their fans and a lack of knowledge of their football club is astounding.

 

[Papa G]

Yet Foxtel pays more for North games than they and Austar were prepared to pay for live and exclusive games for the entire SA and WA market. Go figure...

All SA and WA teams games are on free to air in their respective states. All away games are live, pretty much all home games are live or near live. The need and demand for foxtel in SA and WA is minimal. How many Roos games are on free to air in Melbourne? 5 or 6? I guess if you are a North supporter and want to see your team play, you need foxtel. Go figure...

 

[Royal Flush]

Dogs - I have posted my reasons why this is unlikely already. Suffice to say we represent one of the biggest growth corridors in Australia and the AFL is finally realising how important a healthy and successful Bulldogs is to the competition.
.

Flawed because you don't own it, not even close. To speak geographically you have Geelong and Essendon. To say that residents of Sunshine-Werribee support the Dogs is flawed. Sure there are Dogs supporters there but you also have almost every other team supporteed there. I can bet that there are at least 6 more clubs that are more popular in the Western Suburbs then the Dogs.

To be honest I think the AFL craves a healthy and successful Richmond. I'm sure they're happy for the Dogs, but your success isn't having radical implications on the AFL.

How the fact that the Dogs play games in Darwin and Canberra slips under the radar is beyond me. Their business model relies heavily on selling two games ($800k), AFL special distribution (largest in the AFL) and pokies revenue which could be impacted at any time. NSW Leagues clubs are suffering big time with increased taxes to pokies recently introduced and their unhealthy reliance on pokies revenue.

Chances are no club will relocate to Tassie. But to exclude the Dogs (When it is likely they are one of the three clubs expressing interest in playing there) from the equation based on the fact that they "represent" the Western suburbs is flawed.

 

[AngelEyes]

Making something up on the Internet to support a barrow you've been pushing (unsuccessfully) for a few years doesn't count as a 'rumour' nor does it count as evidence.

Tell me this.

Just think it through. Nice and slow.

Why at a time when the AFL is pouring money into what it knows will be hugely risky and time and resource consuming activity in expansion clubs would it actively divert that effort into removing an estalished revenue source?

Why?

Here is a link to Frank Costa saying special funding will likely end when new teams come in. Link

Thats not the best article I've read on it but I can't be bothered searching for other articles in order to show you. He mentions special funding ending 2012 in more clear terms in another article.

I did want the Kangaroos to got to the Gold Coast but then changed my mind and think its best they got their own team. However, I don't see what is so wrong about my comments that the Kangaroos being most likely to go. Your membership has dropped significantly and I don't see who else is more likely to go.

You could suggest the Bulldogs but I have no doubt the AFL will use the report saying the Bulldogs are as important to the future of the AFL as Western Sydney as catalyst for giving them extra money above the norm. Teams will survive if its in the AFL's long term interest and there is a report to say that the Bulldogs are as they capture Western Melbourne. I don't see any report to suggest the Kangaroos are as important. This isn't a thought this a report and organisation such as the AFL will have no problem relying on such reports to back their plans. I don't see how it's flawed as surely the AFL will make an assessment on who is less important in Victoria.

The Power, the GC, Western Sydney, the Dogs will survive as they will get an AFL lifeline. I don't see one coming for the Roos (and that's using logic). It's sad but I don't see how that is that is being harsh to the Kangaroos from my point of view. Ideally for the AFL one club would relocate to Tasmania and there would be 9 Vic and 9 interstate teams.

A Tasmania team won't need financing as its likely such a venture will get Government guarantees and support.

 

[cammo78]

The delusion expressed by some of their fans and a lack of knowledge of their football club is astounding.

 

[jacko57]

That is utter crap.

Your average home crowd is 17923. Ours is 19590.

Your average away crowd is 19802. Ours is 21664.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Source: http://www.stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/summary.html#01

Not exactly flattering figures for either club ; not sure how this convinces you of the Dog's status as a powerhouse of the competition.

 

[cammo78]

Not exactly flattering figures for either club ; not sure how this convinces you of the Dog's status as a powerhouse of the competition.

At what point was that mentioned?

 

[Royal Flush]

Nope not at all, quite the opposite. North Fans, well on BF anyway, seem to have intimate knowledge of the club and communication with key people in the club to know where their club is at and which path it is going. We don't need references to some news article dictated by a third party to know what our club is doing. I like many others email our CEO to get answers to Media generated inuendo. You know what I get a reply telling me exactly how it is.

 

[Brad Roo]

Here is a link to Frank Costa saying special funding will likely end when new teams come in. Link

"It's just my personal view............"

..........and is therefore irrelevant.

Frank Costa is a big mouthed fruit and vegetate salesman with questionable business links, nothing more.

 

[Long Live the King]

I think the logical solution would be a team with established links and infrastructure in Tasmania. With an existing supporter base that has over a handful of years demonstrated their willingness to attend games. A team that readily promotes Tasmania.

And most importantly of all a team that is happy to continue snubbing its local members in order to pursue the cash on offer to play multiple home games in Tassie.

Yep the Hawks should relocate. Waverley is 3 quarters housing estate, Mirvac could quickly demolish whats left and provide housing for hundreds of families. Win Win for everyone!

 

[twentytwo]

No one is going anywhere.

New teams. Tas19 and WA20.

Industry pundits are saying TV rights will be north of 1 billion dollars for 2012-2016. What about 2017-2021?

If, and it's a big if, GC17 and GWS18 make a real fist of it. A premiership or at least solid progress towards sustained profitability and success, then the AFL will go balls and all for two new teams.

10 games a weekend. Maybe 24 rounds. Conference system would work beautifully. And the money would be there. Would 2 billion be out of the question? (laugh if you want, but house prices are going up that quick)





Oh, and a sidenote. I really like North trying to do something in Ballarat. I think it has the potential to turn around their finances much like Hawthorn and their Tasmanian venture. Not to the same extent, but it is a massive step in the right direction.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

YES!

I was happy with a personal email from Eugene Arocca telling me we aren't interested in Tassie..

How very sad, that on any sniff of relocation or death, your CEO has to personally email its fans (all 10 of them) to reassure them.
What a fragile existance you live.

... but now Doctor_Jolly has spoken saying we certainly will go, we have our final guarantee of safety.

Really though dude, give it up, you've been wrong on this stuff for getting close to three years (that I remember).

Every time. Every step of the way. Every development. You have got it wrong.
.

My timing might be off, but my prediction is still true. It will happen.

 

[JiggaDog]

Flawed because you don't own it, not even close. To speak geographically you have Geelong and Essendon. To say that residents of Sunshine-Werribee support the Dogs is flawed. Sure there are Dogs supporters there but you also have almost every other team supporteed there. I can bet that there are at least 6 more clubs that are more popular in the Western Suburbs then the Dogs.

To be honest I think the AFL craves a healthy and successful Richmond. I'm sure they're happy for the Dogs, but your success isn't having radical implications on the AFL.

How the fact that the Dogs play games in Darwin and Canberra slips under the radar is beyond me. Their business model relies heavily on selling two games ($800k), AFL special distribution (largest in the AFL) and pokies revenue which could be impacted at any time. NSW Leagues clubs are suffering big time with increased taxes to pokies recently introduced and their unhealthy reliance on pokies revenue.

Chances are no club will relocate to Tassie. But to exclude the Dogs (When it is likely they are one of the three clubs expressing interest in playing there) from the equation based on the fact that they "represent" the Western suburbs is flawed.

Personally I'm done with the slinging between Dogs and Roos. You can say all you want but as AngelEyes has said above (and said elsewhere in the thread) the latest AFL commissioned report on the Dogs outlines their importance to the league because of their representation of the Western suburbs.

You'll just have to accept it - its fact.

And you obviously have no idea about team support in Melbourne's west. The ONLY two clubs challenging the Dogs are the Bombers and the Pies, with Geelong having some strong support too. Sure there are supporters of other teams but in minorities.

Oh and the North BF supporters strong knowledge of their club finances and strategy, and emailing the CEO, etc just indicates how strong the victim mentality is within your club.

Why can't you accept people's opinions (and yes they're as common as arseholes) that North is the club most in danger.

As I said earlier in the thread IMO the Ballarat strategy is a good one and could help deliver that long term viability you so desperately seek. Good luck

 

[jacko57]

How very sad, that on any sniff of relocation or death, your CEO has to personally email its fans (all 10 of them) to reassure them.
What a fragile existance you live.

My timing might be off, but my prediction is still true. It will happen.

How very sad, though typically bitter, that you find something wrong with a CEO taking the time to communicate with the members of the club he works for. And that you continue to obsess over the possibility of NMFC folding.

It won't happen.............and I LOVE the fact that that sticks in the guts of people like you.

 

[Royal Flush]

Personally I'm done with the slinging between Dogs and Roos. You can say all you want but as AngelEyes has said above (and said elsewhere in the thread) the latest AFL commissioned report on the Dogs outlines their importance to the league because of their representation of the Western suburbs.

You'll just have to accept it - its fact.

Apparently she is ok looking. I just dont like her or the agenda she has.

And you obviously have no idea about team support in Melbourne's west. The ONLY two clubs challenging the Dogs are the Bombers and the Pies, with Geelong having some strong support too. Sure there are supporters of other teams but in minorities..

I dont reckon you have an idea all your doing is speculating. I can say for certain that many clubs have greater support there.

Oh and the North BF supporters strong knowledge of their club finances and strategy, and emailing the CEO, etc just indicates how strong the victim mentality is within your club...

How can you say that? You been on welfare and have never initiated anything. zilch. It was us who started the petitioning to gain favourable deals at Etihad.

Why can't you accept people's opinions (and yes they're as common as arseholes) that North is the club most in danger.

Danger is a bit panicky, I am bringing to light a few facts that Doggies fans might want to consider before pointing the finger at North.
Debt is higher,
Reliance on interstate games (800k)
Highest recipient of ASD
Non -football realted Business model is reliant on pokies which is extremely fragile considering that legislation could cripple your revenue over night.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Your membership has dropped significantly and I don't see who else is more likely to go.

Our membership this year will most likely end up being about 600 down on last year. Or a fall of 1/60th. Hardly a significant fall.

 

[incubi]

If the AFL did withdraw funding, given the Dogs get more than us, they'd be worse off than us.

Also, if the Govt, under political pressure, changed the terms by which clubs can denote pokies earnings as 'community benefit' a number of clubs would suffer, the Dogs most of all.

North on the other hand are pursuing a strategy that makes us far more attractive and stable in terms of being rooted in our community, rather than actively rooting our community as the Dogs do with pokies.

We get $300,000 more than north melbourne yet last year
Dogs Profits
$820,204
North Melbourne
$60,444

Now lets take both these away, yet remember that stadium deals give us an extra $900,000 this year, North melbourne $1.1m. We still make a profit, a small one, but a profit, north melbourne lose money.

Then look at revenue:
Bulldogs: $28,890,860
North: 23,502,446
We obviously have more space to move

It should also be noted that all our pokie revenue goes back into community spending by the club, one of the areas that mean the dogs expenditure each year is significantly higher than that of north melbournes. SpiritWest, the bulldogs community wing, expenditure at the club is $1,216,119, north melbourne list no expenditure towards community aspects (maybe the $117,631 listed under other)

We have also opened with our new facilities a child care centre, a university campus, the new home of the wrfl and soon will have a 6 court community basketball stadium, the community aspects of norths stretch to....a classroom...

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

This thread may yet come back to bite me on the arse.

 

[JiggaDog]

This thread may yet come back to bite me on the arse.

You have piqued my interest ... strange (almost) admission - please explain SLF.

^^ And good post incubi