Tasmania Riewoldt calls on AFL to give Tassie its own team

[Kwality]

I doubt it mate. With Etihad becoming an AFL outright owned facility, I think Tassie will dip out on another offer like that & I think the days of smaller Victorian clubs going to the wall are a thing of the past.

another North fan not across whats happening at Etihad e.g you are still playing under the old financial arrangement, ownership changed, financial arrangements unchanged. Budgets seem to indicate the place will run at a loss.

any way you look at the FIXture there are too many teams in Melbourne ... IMHO !

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm not so sure. The AFL and Tas Govt would make it worthwhile for a Melbourne club with incentives as part of an offer (Extra $$, a Tasmanian academy, etc) to help tick the box of a single Tasmanian team.

Are you referring to a complete relocation?

If so, you don't appear to understand the mentality of the Victorian club supporters, who overwhelmingly do not see their clubs as business models. I assume you are an interstate supporter who is not up to scratch with the nuances of the game in Victoria.

No club will move because of financial incentives. None, Nein, Zero, Zilch, Period! North turned down $100,000,000 to relocate!!!!

Tasmanian people wouldn't embrace a relocated club for decades anyway. Is a Tasmanian Carlton follower going to follow a relocated Hawthorn? Hell no.

Hawthorn don't play Docklands either. Clearly the incentives to move a few games as it is are already pretty good. Hence why more clubs are increasingly looking for 2nd homes (Dogs in Ballarat, St.Kilda trying again in NZ, etc)

Clubs are always looking to expand their membership, but there isn't a single one that would do it under the guise of a complete relocation.

 

[Crawb]

Are you referring to a complete relocation?

If so, you don't appear to understand the mentality of the Victorian club supporters, who overwhelmingly do not see their clubs as business models. I assume you are an interstate supporter who is not up to scratch with the nuances of the game in Victoria.

No club will move because of financial incentives. None, Nein, Zero, Zilch, Period! North turned down $100,000,000 to relocate!!!!

Tasmanian people wouldn't embrace a relocated club for decades anyway. Is a Tasmanian Carlton follower going to follow a relocated Hawthorn? Hell no.



Clubs are always looking to expand their membership, but there isn't a single one that would do it under the guise of a complete relocation.

No just partial relocation is what I'm still referring to (7-8 home games played in Tasmania). Club still trains in Melbourne most weeks and ends up playing half their games in Melbourne. Because like you say no club will agree to a full relocation unless forced.

My general point is this model offers the AFL an easy fix to the Tasmanian problem going forward and they'd make it worthwhile for a club to play 7-8 home games a year in Tasmania. Is it really their team? No. But it does just enough for the AFL to say that they've got their own team. Melbourne based fans of the club still get to see their club every second week essentially.

 

[Snake_Baker]

another North fan not across whats happening at Etihad e.g you are still playing under the old financial arrangement, ownership changed, financial arrangements unchanged. Budgets seem to indicate the place will run at a loss.

What intimate knowledge do you possess about how the AFL services it's assets & loans that is relevant to your point?

any way you look at the FIXture there are too many teams in Melbourne ... IMHO !

Your HO seems to be out of touch with the people running the show.

The Melbourne clubs are the engine room of the competition. Always have been, always will be.

 

[Kwality]

No just partial relocation is what I'm still referring to (7-8 home games played in Tasmania). Club still trains in Melbourne most weeks and ends up playing half their games in Melbourne. Because like you say no club will agree to a full relocation unless forced.

My general point is this model offers the AFL an easy fix to the Tasmanian problem going forward and they'd make it worthwhile for a club to play 7-8 home games a year in Tasmania. Is it really their team? No. But it does just enough for the AFL to say that they've got their own team. Melbourne based fans of the club still get to see their club every second week essentially.

A con?
Its like the Kangaroos in Sydney, no one bought it & it failed in Canberra too .. Melbourne does not support 9 teams, 2 have gone since the 80s .... not many North fans bought the Sydnay/Canberra con jobs, & its an insult to Tas to expect them to be sucked in, sucked in is being suggested !!

 

[Snake_Baker]

No just partial relocation is what I'm still referring to (7-8 home games played in Tasmania). Club still trains in Melbourne most weeks and ends up playing half their games in Melbourne. Because like you say no club will agree to a full relocation unless forced.

My general point is this model offers the AFL an easy fix to the Tasmanian problem going forward and they'd make it worthwhile for a club to play 7-8 home games a year in Tasmania. Is it really their team? No. But it does just enough for the AFL to say that they've got their own team. Melbourne based fans of the club still get to see their club every second week essentially.

I get your point, but it would take a very tempting offer, and then place an even bigger millstone around the self representation of Tasmanian football.

 

[Kram]

A shitload of empty seats down at Launceston today, locals might have had enough of the fly in, fly out teams.

 

[Kwality]

What intimate knowledge do you possess about how the AFL services it's assets & loans that is relevant to your point?

Your HO seems to be out of touch with the people running the show.

The Melbourne clubs are the engine room of the competition. Always have been, always will be.

Why not just google it for yourself, its not a secret even though you might feel shortchanged Snakey ... try this, the Melbourne footy press don't like bad news?

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/w...ts-200-million-etihad-stadium-20170507-gvzo33

The league showed just how big its fiscal power was last year when it bought the stadium for about $200 million from its previous ownership consortium of superannuation and investment funds. Prior to last year's purchase, the AFL was going to assume ownership in 2025 anyway for a peppercorn $30. It paid $30 million to obtain those rights in 1999.
Instead, the AFL's 2016 financial year accounts show it took out a loan of $280 million to buy the stadium, making it the first sports body in the country to have control over a large and modern asset.

In reality the stadium made an operating profit of about $3 million from revenue of about $76 million in 2016, though those figures were each down $3 million from the previous year.


Now comes what to do with the facility. It is home for the majority of home games for AFL clubs such as Essendon, St Kilda, North Melbourne and defending premiers Western Bulldogs as well as hosting other sports like soccer's Melbourne Victory and cricket's Melbourne Renegades, and concerts and events.

The AFL tenants have long complained about the onerous terms of their deals to play at the stadium, and the AFL's general manager of finance, Ray Gunston, who also chairs SOL, says work is being done to figure out how the AFL can change the mix of ticketing and corporate hospitality to mean the clubs get a better deal.

,
1 + 1 Snakey, made $3 operating profit, load it up with $280 mil debt, no wonder the AFL are still figuring, hoping the problem goes away as you appear to think it has.

 

[Toump Ass]

And do people really think that players would care going to live in Hobart if they're getting paid upwards of 200k a year to play footy?

Depends if they like sex, drugs and nightlife or not.

I'd gladly take 100k less a year if it meant not living in Hobart, I'm sure most 19 year old's would agree.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why not just google it for yourself, its not a secret even though you might feel shortchanged ...

Kwality: (interjecting) XXXXXX claim
Other: Can you back that up? response
Kwality: Google it yourself. reply

I just can't take you seriously.

 

[user33]

Don't see a problem with that. Tasmania is better off being a quiet place. It's probably the most underrated place for a getaway in the country.

Completely agree mate. It's just annoying down here as people are demanding a team but refuse any sort of growth.

 

[demondavey]

Completely agree mate. It's just annoying down here as people are demanding a team but refuse any sort of growth.

You give me a choice of Tasmania or Queensland and it's Tasmania every day of the week. Quality place.

 

[Crawb]

A con?
Its like the Kangaroos in Sydney, no one bought it & it failed in Canberra too .. Melbourne does not support 9 teams, 2 have gone since the 80s .... not many North fans bought the Sydnay/Canberra con jobs, & its an insult to Tas to expect them to be sucked in, sucked in is being suggested !!

It's a con, sure. But Tasmania already gets 7 games from FIFO teams. So it's not like it's worse than the status quo and it ticks the box of having a "Tasmanian" team in the AFL's eyes without the drama of a full relocation of a club or another entire expansion project when the AFL would prefer to focus on the Suns & Giants for at least a decade still.

I get your point, but it would take a very tempting offer, and then place an even bigger millstone around the self representation of Tasmanian football.

Totally. But it is not unrealistic either. I remember James Brayshaw said himself he'd be prepared to make it happen a few years ago (though obviously strongly denied the "partial relocation" term). Obviously it wouldn't be as lucrative in terms of $$$ as the Gold Coast offer, but the AFL would certainly make it worthwhile for a club to permanently put the Tasmania issue to bed.

 

[Kwality]

Kwality: (interjecting) XXXXXX claim
Other: Can you back that up? response
Kwality: Google it yourself. reply

I just can't take you seriously.

I picked you as a denier, I have no inside knowledge, you don't need it either :
Why not just google it for yourself, its not a secret even though you might feel shortchanged Snakey ... try this, the Melbourne footy press don't like bad news?

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/w...ts-200-million-etihad-stadium-20170507-gvzo33

The league showed just how big its fiscal power was last year when it bought the stadium for about $200 million from its previous ownership consortium of superannuation and investment funds. Prior to last year's purchase, the AFL was going to assume ownership in 2025 anyway for a peppercorn $30. It paid $30 million to obtain those rights in 1999.
Instead, the AFL's 2016 financial year accounts show it took out a loan of $280 million to buy the stadium, making it the first sports body in the country to have control over a large and modern asset.

In reality the stadium made an operating profit of about $3 million from revenue of about $76 million in 2016, though those figures were each down $3 million from the previous year.


Now comes what to do with the facility. It is home for the majority of home games for AFL clubs such as Essendon, St Kilda, North Melbourne and defending premiers Western Bulldogs as well as hosting other sports like soccer's Melbourne Victory and cricket's Melbourne Renegades, and concerts and events.

The AFL tenants have long complained about the onerous terms of their deals to play at the stadium, and the AFL's general manager of finance, Ray Gunston, who also chairs SOL, says work is being done to figure out how the AFL can change the mix of ticketing and corporate hospitality to mean the clubs get a better deal.

,
1 + 1 Snakey, made $3m operating profit, load it up with $280 mil debt, no wonder the AFL are still figuring, hoping the problem goes away as you appear to think it has. Its out there in the public domain ... no special knowledge needed ...




Last edited: 3 minutes ago

 

[Snake_Baker]

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/w...ts-200-million-etihad-stadium-20170507-gvzo33

The league showed just how big its fiscal power was last year when it bought the stadium for about $200 million from its previous ownership consortium of superannuation and investment funds. Prior to last year's purchase, the AFL was going to assume ownership in 2025 anyway for a peppercorn $30. It paid $30 million to obtain those rights in 1999.

Instead, the AFL's 2016 financial year accounts show it took out a loan of $280 million to buy the stadium, making it the first sports body in the country to have control over a large and modern asset.

In reality the stadium made an operating profit of about $3 million from revenue of about $76 million in 2016, though those figures were each down $3 million from the previous year.


Now comes what to do with the facility. It is home for the majority of home games for AFL clubs such as Essendon, St Kilda, North Melbourne and defending premiers Western Bulldogs as well as hosting other sports like soccer's Melbourne Victory and cricket's Melbourne Renegades, and concerts and events.

The AFL tenants have long complained about the onerous terms of their deals to play at the stadium, and the AFL's general manager of finance, Ray Gunston, who also chairs SOL, says work is being done to figure out how the AFL can change the mix of ticketing and corporate hospitality to mean the clubs get a better deal.

Nice edit.

What does this have to do with my question?

The AFL took out a loan on an asset, so what?

Do you have specific information that the Etihad clubs are being forced to pay this loan?

Where is the connection?

1 + 1 Snakey, made $3 operating profit, load it up with $280 mil debt, no wonder the AFL are still figuring, hoping the problem goes away as you appear to think it has.

1 + 1 + blind parochialism = absurdity.

In what way are the Etihad clubs solely responsible for this, or any other AFL loan? Did the sale of Etihad come with contracts intact? When do these contracts with clubs expire?

If the contracts are still intact then they expire in 2025, big deal!!!

I have no inside knowledge,



Last edited: 3 minutes ago

Thanks, and your input on the matter will be treated accordingly.

 

[Nugett]

Tas have a ready audience for AFL footy on their doorstep, that's why the AFL clubs have been able to pick their pockets - I see that money better spent by the Tas govt on a team of their own & it would be well placed at arrest the decay of the game at the hands of their AFL masters in Melbourne.
Sadly the AFL are more interested in protecting the Melbourne market than in the welfare of the game nationally.
Tas actively promoting tourism around games has a bigger potential than WA, who are looking to attract tourists to their new $big buck Perth Stadium.

Am I just more optimistic Nugett, or am I just wrong?

I know it's from Wikipedia, but apparently Tasmania is next in line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_AFL_bid

I think Tasmania needs to sort out a lot of things personally to make it viable. First is economy.
2nd is the divide between North and South.
Thirdly the state needs an influx of 25-35 year olds willing to move/stay there.

I'm not a big fan of the state government paying for teams to play down there including Hawthorn. As I think the money would be better spent on developing sporting infrastructure in general.
When a Tasmanian team eventuates, I'd like to see it happen without government assistance.

 

[Nugett]

Their is only one hurdle. The biased attitude within the AFL. That much is clear. Some of their comments on the matter have been complete BS & just laughable coming from a so called professional organisation.

They are acting like the protector of some private club. Not as the guardian of AR football as they pretend to do.

We have 2 stadiums. Both would be used for both cricket & football, as they always should have. The team should be based in Hobart as the infrastructure is better placed to support an AFL club.

Years ago I spoke to the son of one of the owners of the Devils NBL License. As I was told, the NBL Devils weren't broke but the owners could see the writing on the wall & left before problems became insurmountable. I think I lost count of how many NBL clubs did go bust or gave up after the Devils voluntarily left the scene.

I agree with that statement. From the two grounds, Bellerive imo is the better viewing ground than York Park. Slightly better public transport system. The only issue I had with Bellerive was the lack of parking near the ground.
The advantage I see for York Park is that you will get people from the North-West willing to go there, rather than travelling down to Hobart.

 

[bombersfan4000]

You give me a choice of Tasmania or Queensland and it's Tasmania every day of the week. Quality place.

lol! there always has to be one odd one out

 

[Kwality]

I know it's from Wikipedia, but apparently Tasmania is next in line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_AFL_bid

I think Tasmania needs to sort out a lot of things personally to make it viable. First is economy.
2nd is the divide between North and South.
Thirdly the state needs an influx of 25-35 year olds willing to move/stay there.

I'm not a big fan of the state government paying for teams to play down there including Hawthorn. As I think the money would be better spent on developing sporting infrastructure in general.
When a Tasmanian team eventuates, I'd like to see it happen without government assistance.

I agree philosophically, however investing (sponsoring the Hawks in an AFL team) appears to have worked (http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/222e30ba545f12d8905010d23a1c70b6) and if you accept that on face value, a local AFL team supported by an aggressive tourism campaign could ratchet up the economy.

That the AFL tried to move out the Hawks & replace them with North suggests they will continue to use the Tasmanian taxpayer - IMHO don't believe a word they say.

 

[Nugett]

I agree philosophically, however investing (sponsoring the Hawks in an AFL team) appears to have worked (http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/222e30ba545f12d8905010d23a1c70b6) and if you accept that on face value, a local AFL team supported by an aggressive tourism campaign could ratchet up the economy.

That the AFL tried to move out the Hawks & replace them with North suggests they will continue to use the Tasmanian taxpayer - IMHO don't believe a word they say.

I think we will know more, when the AFL starts talking expansion again, which will be most likely after 2030. I can't see a Melbourne club either folding or relocating to be honest. The benefits of tourism could be a huge benefit.
If they do it right. The way I'd do it is by offering a package deal, with a weekend package, accommodation, the game, flights, car hire and a day of other activities of the person(s) choice.
Or a week long package where your encouraging people to move around the state as well as seeing the game.
So the potential is there

 

[Kwality]

I think we will know more, when the AFL starts talking expansion again, which will be most likely after 2030. I can't see a Melbourne club either folding or relocating to be honest. The benefits of tourism could be a huge benefit.
If they do it right. The way I'd do it is by offering a package deal, with a weekend package, accommodation, the game, flights, car hire and a day of other activities of the person(s) choice.
Or a week long package where your encouraging people to move around the state as well as seeing the game.
So the potential is there

& you will have the benefit of what happens in Perth as an indicator. Tourism WA has played an active role in the new stadium looking to use the facility to increase tourist numbers, but appear to want footy to be a cash cow while they dole out taxpayer money to attract Origin NRL, the Bledisloe Cup, and Soccer in any form. AFL footy needs to be promoted aggressively in the target markets, it wont be a case of build it & they will come. The week long package should be the product pushed IMHO.

 

[Nugett]

& you will have the benefit of what happens in Perth as an indicator. Tourism WA has played an active role in the new stadium looking to use the facility to increase tourist numbers, but appear to want footy to be a cash cow while they dole out taxpayer money to attract Origin NRL, the Bledisloe Cup, and Soccer in any form. AFL footy needs to be promoted aggressively in the target markets, it wont be a case of build it & they will come. The week long package should be the product pushed IMHO.

the longer they stay, the money gets spent! Just off topic, with the A League looking to expand, it will be interesting to see what their plans for Tasmania are.

 

[Chuckie357]

Hawks play 4 home games in Tas we paid a club to play us in China.
But by all means keep pushing for those big NZ markets while we settle for little old China

When will we see the tarps on eBay?

 

[madmug]

I agree with that statement. From the two grounds, Bellerive imo is the better viewing ground than York Park. Slightly better public transport system. The only issue I had with Bellerive was the lack of parking near the ground.
The advantage I see for York Park is that you will get people from the North-West willing to go there, rather than travelling down to Hobart.

Sharing games will maximise attendances. Some will go to the closest ground. Some will follow the club to both grounds. Some will fly interstate for games, interstaters will come here for games. Ive always said Bellerive Oval is a problem. Its a great facility, but what a stupid place to build a stadium!!!

 

[demondavey]

lol! there always has to be one odd one out

Sell me the QLD attraction? Definitely not odd as I don't follow the mob with southern cross tatts