Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

[Chief]

---

GO TO PART 2 of this thread:

Tasmania - Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5 (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5.1226653/ Was going to draft up a Summary but this is pretty good...

www.bigfooty.com

---

 

[Walshawk]

It’s pretty obvious there going try and push north down here over the next 5-10 years

Yep.
That has various negative effects. If it fails, it Pretty much kills off Tassie getting their own team, as well as possibly killing off North if they put all their eggs in the Tassie basket.
Would a full relocation have more change of succeeding than being half and half? Probably. Like the Swans they would eventually become accepted as a true local team for Tasmanians, whilst retaining maybe half their support in Melbourne.

 

[Walshawk]

If the AFL goes with the full report into its operations as the clubs are currently proposing, there will be a final answer to this Tassie question.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

If the AFL goes with the full report into its operations as the clubs are currently proposing, there will be a final answer to this Tassie question.

I don’t think they will give a definitive answer on a Tasmania team it doesn’t suit them to do it there not going to give us a stand alone team anytime soon but they will continue to string us along with future promises for as long as possible. If they came strait out and said we were not going to get a license anytime soon they know our government would pull all our funding from the fifo clubs immediately which the afl really don’t want to happen in the current financial climate

 

[Rob]

The Tas. Bid documents (independently verified by experts) said the extra Rights' $ would be worth $19m pa for the AFL. Admittedly, the new Rights' deal from 11.6.20 has reduced the Total Rights by 12-13%, according to the AFL's report to Club Presidents around 11.6.

A 19 th team delivers 11 extra H & A games pa -more content.

Yeah i'd want a citation for that. You're essentially saying that Fox would kick in $19m for a Tassie team (given 7 isn't going to want more games). Even taking covid out, that seems excessively optimistic, and if it was actually true, then there would be a clause in the TV contract allowing for it already.

 

[fargothegreat]

Yep.
That has various negative effects. If it fails, it Pretty much kills off Tassie getting their own team, as well as possibly killing off North if they put all their eggs in the Tassie basket.
Would a full relocation have more change of succeeding than being half and half? Probably. Like the Swans they would eventually become accepted as a true local team for Tasmanians, whilst retaining maybe half their support in Melbourne.

The Kangaroos are the whores of the competition. They've had Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Ballarat and Hobart as their second home, milking each one and abandoning them when a better offer came along.

I'm not sure the people of Tasmania would ever accept such a desperate and sad football club as their own.

 

[The Warlord]

If the AFL couldn't get us to the Gold Coast with a quisling board and $10m in debt, they're certainly not getting us to Tassie with an anti reloaction board and no debt.

I reckon some other teams might be inclined to believe their lies about the Great Deal though.

 

[The Warlord]

The Kangaroos are the whores of the competition. They've had Sydney, Canberra, Gold Coast, Ballarat and Hobart as their second home, milking each one and abandoning them when a better offer came along.

I'm not sure the people of Tasmania would ever accept such a desperate and sad football club as their own.

Like how Richmond milked Cairns for money then abandoned them

 

[fargothegreat]

Like how Richmond milked Cairns for money then abandoned them

Yeah definitely like that, but Richmond hasn't done a tour of the whole country looking for the next paycheck that will keep them afloat, because Richmond doesn't need to.

North wants Tasmanians to view them as their team, but they don't want to be Tasmania's team. All they're worried about is surviving, and as the years pass without any growth and their last success becomes a more distant memory, it's getting harder and harder.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Yeah i'd want a citation for that.

It appears you haven't read, in this Thread from 6.2.20 onwards, the linked, full Tas. Bid Documents- & its references to a Tas. 19th team being worth c. $19m pa in extra Rights $ for the AFL (probably 11 extra Thur. night Prime Time games pa).
Here is another link on the 19th team "...cost(ing) the State Govt. a maximum of $11m pa, & deliver an extra $19m towards AFL TV Rights...".

Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team must happen to save code, report finds

A Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team would not only thrive in the national competition, it is the only thing that will save Australian Rules Football in the state from dying in the face of competition from other sports, a long-awaited report finds.

www.abc.net.au

You're essentially saying that Fox would kick in $19m for a Tassie team (given 7 isn't going to want more games)

I have never said, nor implied, this at all, re Fox- read my post, & the links I provided..

I disagree that Ch.7 would not want an extra 11 H & A Thur. night, high rating Prime Time games - they are VERY valuable.

Even taking covid out, that seems excessively optimistic[No], and if it was actually true, then there would be a clause in the TV contract allowing for it already.

The new 11.6.20 Rights' deals only go to 2024 for Ch.7, & 2022 for Fox. Why do you think the AFL initiated the 2024 date: & did not want to expand past 2024?


I suggest you read the links I nominated in my post #2698 above, for the full details (& links) of what I have written there.
19 teams creates 11 extra H & A games pa.

What do you think would be the monetary annual value for the AFL, if the fabled Tas. elite recruitment goldmine can be reactivated?
How much would the Federal govt. be willing to grant (considering its previous Tas. stadia promises, in this era of hyper-govt. expenditure on infrastructure) to upgrade Bellerive & York Park?

 

[Rob]

It appears you haven't read, in this Thread from 6.2.20 onwards, the linked, full Tas. Bid Documents- & its references to a Tas. 19th team being worth c. $19m pa in extra Rights $ for the AFL (probably 11 extra Thur. night Prime Time games pa).
Here is another link on the 19th team "...cost(ing) the State Govt. a maximum of $11m pa, & deliver an extra $19m towards AFL TV Rights...".

Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team must happen to save code, report finds

A Tasmanian AFL/AFLW team would not only thrive in the national competition, it is the only thing that will save Australian Rules Football in the state from dying in the face of competition from other sports, a long-awaited report finds.

www.abc.net.au

I have never said, nor implied, this at all, re Fox- read my post, & the links I provided..

I disagree that Ch.7 would not want an extra 11 H & A Thur. night, high rating Prime Time games - they are VERY valuable.

Hang on, that's Channel 7 paying for a Thursday night game, not for a Tassie team. The AFL could schedule Thursday night games every week now and get whatever that value is.

The new 11.6.20 Rights' deals only go to 2024 for Ch.7, & 2022 for Fox. Why do you think the AFL initiated the 2024 date: & did not want to expand past 2024?

I suggest you read the links I nominated in my post #2698 above, for the full details (& links) of what I have written there.
19 teams creates 11 extra H & A games pa.

What do you think would be the monetary annual value for the AFL, if the fabled Tas. elite recruitment goldmine can be reactivated?
How much would the Federal govt. be willing to grant (considering its previous Tas. stadia promises, in this era of hyper-govt. expenditure on infrastructure) to upgrade Bellerive & York Park?

I don't know, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think a Tassie AFL team will unleash a flood of elite AFL talent out of Tassie. It's not the 1950's and this isn't the VFL. Given the population, having 3 or 4 kids drafted in any given year would be a sensational result.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Hang on, that's Channel 7 paying for a Thursday night game, not for a Tassie team

Exactly! You agree with me about the great value of adding 11 additional Thurs. night games.

A Tas. 19th team will create 11 extra H & A games pa- almost certainly 11 extra Thurs. night timeslots, with huge ratings around Australia (but these new timeslots might rarely feature a Tas. team, as it is better for Tas. to play on Sat. or Sunday, during the day. Probably less Docklands daytime games).

It's not the 1950's and this isn't the VFL. Given the population, having 3 or 4 kids drafted in any given year would be a sensational result.

Depends on the avearge no. of Tas. Draftees, & their quality.
Can you answer the questions I put to you in my post#2709, then I will respond more fully to this incorrect view?

Also, these questions for you.
a. Have you read all the links I provided for you above?

b. Tas.'s pop. is now much greater, across all demographics, than the period to 2000.
Why has the quality & quantity of Tas. Drafted players been so poor since 2000?

c. Why is Tas. so vastly overrepresented, in per capita terms, in the AFL Hall Of Fame, & AFL Team Of The Century?

d. Why have both A. Demetriou & G. McLachlan said several times (including again in 2019) that (paraphrasing) " When the AFL expands next, Tasmania will probably be the next team to join"?
Ditto, R. Oakley also stating in 2019 that Tas. should have its own, 19th team?

What do you know that they don't?

e. Excluding D. King (& J. Kennett prior to late 2018), why have no other AF experts publicly advocated against adding a Tas. 19th team in the 12 months prior to Feb. 2020 (ie covid-19 impact)?

And why have so many AF experts in the MSM (noted in this Thread by myself, & others) strongly supported adding a Tas. 19th team, prior to covid-19?

 

[the big lebowski]

All they're worried about is surviving, and as the years pass without any growth and their last success becomes a more distant memory, it's getting harder and harder.

Yet EVERY year our financial position strengthens. Strange.

 

[Rob]

Exactly! You agree with me about the great value of adding 11 additional Thurs. night games.

A Tas. 19th team will create 11 extra H & A games pa- almost certainly 11 extra Thurs. night timeslots, with huge ratings around Australia (but these new timeslots might rarely feature a Tas. team, as it is better for Tas. to play on Sat. or Sunday, during the day. Probably less Docklands daytime games).


Depends on the avearge no. of Tas. Draftees, & their quality.
Can you answer the questions I put to you in my post#2709, then I will respond more fully to this incorrect view?

Also, these questions for you.
a. Have you read all the links I provided for you above?

Not in their entirety, no.

b. Tas.'s pop. is now much greater, across all demographics, than the period to 2000.
Why has the quality & quantity of Tas. Drafted players been so poor since 2000?

Raw numbers that might be true, but as a proportion of Australia, that is incorrect.

2000 population - 473,303 - 2.49% of Australia's total
2020 population - 539,590 - 2.10% of Australia's total

I don't know about the demographic changes within that population over that period, but I can tell you that Tassie currently has the oldest median age of all states and territories - 42. SA is 2nd with 40. You can probably conclude that the proportion of that population of draftable age is also low just from that (which I stand to be corrected though if you can provide the data - I can't be bothered looking it up).

And to add to that the growth in draftees from NSW and Queensland, it's no longer just heartland states that provide the players any more. I expect if you look at raw playing numbers across the country that the Tassie proportion of those would have dropped rapidly over that period. But once again, I stand to be corrected if you want to look up the data.

From a purely football reason, I suspect the Mariners not playing in the TAC Cup wouldn't have helped either. Not having a Tassie team would also contribute, as you'd think local clubs would have a natural bias towards locals. Picking between a local kid and a Tassie player of the same calibre, most clubs would probably go the local.

c. Why is Tas. so vastly overrepresented, in per capita terms, in the AFL Hall Of Fame, & AFL Team Of The Century?

3 reasons.
1. The AFL hall of fame is very VFL-centric, and the TOC was exclusively from the VFL. For the majority of the 20th century, most decent Tassie players went to the VFL, whereas most decent WA and SA players stayed at home. That meant they were less likely to get selected for the HOF and zero chance of being selected in the TOC.
2. Tasmania had a much larger population as a proportion of Australia over that period.. In 1960 it was over 3%, now it's 2%. Doesn't sound like much, but say when you compare it to WA, it's gone from being half of WA's population to well under a quarter. So you'd expect the number of good footballers produced as a proportion during the last century was much higher than today.
3. Tassie was a football state, NSW and Queensland didn't produce many players - from what I can see, only Jezaulenko came from outside the heartland in the TOC. This has changed signficantly. There'd be plenty of players from NSW and Queensland in the top 50 since.

d. Why have both A. Demetriou & G. McLachlan said several times (including again in 2019) that (paraphrasing) " When the AFL expands next, Tasmania will probably be the next team to join"?
Ditto, R. Oakley also stating in 2019 that Tas. should have its own, 19th team?

What do you know that they don't?

I don't understand the question, I don't disagree with them.

I don't oppose a Tassie team at all. But that doesn't mean I agree with every wild prediction of vast dollars flowing into our game as a result.

e. Excluding D. King (& J. Kennett prior to late 2018), why have no other AF experts publicly advocated against adding a Tas. 19th team in the 12 months prior to Feb. 2020 (ie covid-19 impact)?

And why have so many AF experts in the MSM (noted in this Thread by myself, & others) strongly supported adding a Tas. 19th team, prior to covid-19?

No idea, ask them. But people advocate a lot of things when they don't have any skin in the game. If I was running the game I probably would have let Tassie in by now too.

By the same token, if it was such a no brainer financially to add a Tassie team, why have the AFL not done so already? $19m in extra TV rights would cover any expenses of a Tassie team - the annual dividend, travel expenses and then some. I don't think there's some big conspiracy against Tassie within the AFL, I think they just view it as a numbers game. But the millions that are flowing to Hawthorn and North from Tassie wouldn't help. Certainly in the case of the latter, the AFL would expect to have to kick in that couple of million to North should the money from Tassie stop.

My best guess is that if Tassie really wants a team, they stop paying other clubs. But it's an all or nothing strategy which may backfire.

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

It’s pretty obvious there going try and push north down here over the next 5-10 years

They’ll have to push >75% of the 39,000 members to send the club down there as well.

An impossible task.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I don't oppose a Tassie team at all. But that doesn't mean I agree with every wild prediction of vast dollars flowing into our game as a result.

From the general tenor of your comments, I thought you opposed a Tas. 19th team.

The $19m pa Rights' etc extra payments to the AFL was in the Tas. Bid documents- not a wild prediction.

The Bid documents' current & future financial figures were:-

. assessed by an independent specialist advisory firm, & found to be fair & reasonable.

. not even publicly challenged, let alone debunked, by any relevant experts following their release on 6.2.20.
It should be noted that Bid Chairman, B. Godfrey, made a public, audacious challenge for anyone to find doubt, or actual fault, with the Bid's economic figures. No one has publicly done so.

From a purely football reason, I suspect the Mariners not playing in the TAC Cup wouldn't have helped either. Not having a Tassie team would also contribute, as you'd think local clubs would have a natural bias towards locals. Picking between a local kid and a Tassie player of the same calibre, most clubs would probably go the local.

I agree.

I don't know about the demographic changes within that population over that period, but I can tell you that Tassie currently has the oldest median age of all states and territories - 42. SA is 2nd with 40

This analysis is inadequate because it does not explain why:-

. elite cricket has done so well in Tas. Ditto, GR cricket is progressing.

. GR male basketball & soccer nos. are booming in Tas., at record highs- but Tas. GR Club & school AF male comp. nos. are in decline.

. The difference between Tas. & SA (42 v. 40 median age) is insignificant -but SA has record nos. of GR male AF players, whilst Tas. is declining. And

- Per capita, SA is superior in Drafted players. Elite Draft development & recruitment is better.
SA State U16 & U18's would be reasonably competitive with Vic.- Tas. would now be thrashed.

- Similarly, Tas. teams have, on a few occasions, defeated Vic., WA, & SA; & have been competitive in many other State matches.
The best Tas. team now, chosen from players in AFL teams, would struggle to be competitive.

Because it doesn't have its own team, with Academies, tribalism, local heroes in a Tas. AFL team to aspire to etc., Tas. GR AF is completely demoralised.
Its AF systems have been underfunded, & almost dysfunctional.

In 1960 it was over 3%, now it's 2%. Doesn't sound like much, but say when you compare it to WA, it's gone from being half of WA's population to well under a quarter. So you'd expect the number of good footballers produced as a proportion during the last century was much higher than today.

Tas. was producing good Draft nos. until the 90's- quality & quantity.
Don't be too transfixed by raw population nos., as they don't explain everything. This is clearly illustrated by WA being so poor in female GR AF club comp. nos.!

By the same token, if it was such a no brainer financially to add a Tassie team, why have the AFL not done so already?

The AFL decided that the large populations of Sydney's WS & ACT, & the Gold Coast, had to have priority- & be serviced by AFL teams asap. It was too risky for the AFL to continue to ignore such rapidly rising population areas (Ditto for a 3rd team in Sydney by 2050, when Sydney is estimated to have 8.5m)

 

[BringBackTorps]

The AFL has survived the covid-19 global economic meltdown in surprisingly robust financial health.

G. McLachlan said 23.10

"...the industry loss between the Clubs & the AFL will be something under $100m. It will be significantly lower...".
This $100m "loss" clearly relates to $100m loss of revenues only in 2020- not an actual net loss of $100m being suffered by the AFL in 2020.

sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU): "News Wrap | Friday, May 8th | WA AFL teams miss out on home games early, India still plan on coming to Australia, Kayo subs take a 30% hit, RA solvency questions https://t.co/ZI3V1TYArR"

twitter.com

(Go to Sports Industry tweet 24.10- then click on The Australian C. Walsh 24.10)

This is definite confirmation, & good news, that the Tas. 19th team bid has not a great or irreversible financial setback due to covid-19.


EDIT:
See my post #2735 below- it is actually a net loss, but possibly significantly lower than $100m (as per McLachlan's comments).

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL has survived the covid-19 global economic meltdown in suprisingly robust financial health.

G. McLachlan said 23.10

"...the industry loss between the Clubs & the AFL will be something under $100m. It will be significantly lower...".
This $100m "loss" clearly relates to $100m loss of revenues only in 2020- not an actual net loss of $100m being suffered by the AFL in 2020.

sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU): "News Wrap | Friday, May 8th | WA AFL teams miss out on home games early, India still plan on coming to Australia, Kayo subs take a 30% hit, RA solvency questions https://t.co/ZI3V1TYArR"

twitter.com

(Go to Sports Industry tweet 24.10- then click on The Australian C. Walsh 24.10)

This is definite confirmation, & good news, that the Tas. 19th team bid has not a great or irreversible financial setback due to covid-19.

You know you can just link the tweet? Try using tweetdeck if you arent already.

 

[eastfreo75]

19th team would create extra cash with extra games and better TV slots more Thursday Night Games.

Recruiting would be difficult but maybe give them the whole of Ireland to recruit from plus all of Tasmania.

Emerald Isle Greens.

Good stadium deals plus government backing makes sense to me.

5 games in Hobart, 5 games in Launceston and 1 game in Dublin.

 

[fargothegreat]

I loved the way Peter Gutwein spoke about negotiations with Hawthorn and North over their next deal.

I think that we'll only put the next deal in place with these clubs if the AFL guarantees that it is the last. And the clubs need this money more than ever right now, so it puts us in a good position to say to the AFL "if we help you now, you have to help us later"

TASMANIA will continue to pursue its AFL dream – and the COVID-19 crisis may open the door sooner than previously planned.

Premier Peter Gutwein has been in discussions with AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan recently and plans to ramp up the talks in the next four to six weeks after the dust has settled on the delayed, reduced 2020 season that has hit the big league’s coffers hard.

The government’s AFL Taskforce’s business case, released just prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, put in an aspiration of a 2025 time frame at a taxpayer cost of $7.3 million a year for 11 home games a season returning $110 million and 360 jobs.

The government has also started talks with Hawthorn, while TT-Line’s contract with North Melbourne also ends after next year,

Combined they are worth $8m a season to the Hawks and the Roos for eight AFL games a season.

There has been rumblings in Melbourne that North Melbourne’s future lies in Tasmania, but Mr Gutwein said he had not had any discussions with the Kangaroos about them playing more games in Tasmania, and that the focus remained on the state securing its own licence.

He said he was focused on providing AFL content in Tasmania beyond 2021, but there was a caveat.

“I’ve always been of the view that the next contracts we put in place need to be contracts that provide a bridge to our next step and that would be our AFL licence,” he said.

“I’ve had discussions with Hawthorn as well recently, we started to discuss the 2022 year contract onwards and I’ve certainly indicated to (Hawks president) Jeff Kennett our desire hasn’t changed, our aspiration remains for an AFL licence.

“But obviously we need to sit down and work through this sensibly.”

Previous Hawthorn contracts have been over five-year periods, but Mr Gutwein said the length of the next deal would be worked out in conjunction with the AFL as to “what it sees the future for Tasmania and an AFL licence.”

Mr Gutwein would not say whether the next deal would also include a sponsorship component with the Hawks.

 

[BringBackTorps]

The Mercury B. Stubbs 23.10
Full Mercury article here.

Tasmanian AFL Team (@TasAFLteam) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from Tasmanian AFL Team (@TasAFLteam). Join up: https://t.co/oXSZfDikC6 // Keep up to date: @uws_tassie // Follow the team: @TasmaniaDevils_ // This is an unofficial account. Swansea, Tasmania

twitter.com

(Go to 23.10 tweet- then click on Mercury article "Could Covid-19 Help Tassie's AFL Dream)


The Mercury J. Cairney 24.10

No Cookies | The Mercury

No Cookies

www.themercury.com.au

(Behind paywall- can anyone open, & post here?).

 

[BringBackTorps]

1.

You know you can just link the tweet? Try using tweetdeck if you arent already.

I have never been on Facebook or twitter, nor am I interested. I only peruse either when they are linked on a website re an AF topic; or your sportsindustry.com twitter.
What is tweetdeck?



2. Former Tas. Premier W. Hodgman said 21.10.20

"There's no better time to be looking at a Tasmanian team when they (AFL) reshape what the future of AFL footy looks like".




I assume that when the AFL has a reasonably good understanding of what the covid-19 restrictions are in Victoria, & the rest of Aust., will it will be able to make an informed decision on how the AFL & its fixture etc. will operate in 2021 (inc. Tas. in the U18 NAB League). Perhaps a clear covid picture will, hopefully, be known by mid-late December.

As per post #2720 & the 24.10 Mercury article, the Tas. govt. "...has recently been in discussions with the AFL, & plans to ramp up talks in the next 4-6 weeks, when the dust on the AFL season has settled".

The Vic. govt. announced today that the Boxing Day Test will be permitted to have crowds up to 25,000. Hopefully, by late March 2021, permitted crowds will be much larger, all borders open etc.






EDIT:

Melb. Radio 3AW 693 reporting 29.10 that the AFL & clubs are exploring (if crowds are limited in 2021) making entry to games in 2021 Member only; or Member first priority.

 

[BringBackTorps]

On 3.11, B. Gale said re the new financial situation (of RFC, the AFL generally, or both)

"We're not going to get back to pre-covid settings until 2023. The next 2 years are going to be really tough".

Club bosses reflect on COVID-19's 'catastrophic' impact on season

The CEOs of the Richmond Tigers, Melbourne Vixens and New Zealand Warriors reflect on a winter like no other, saying they will be dealing with the repercussions for a long time to come.

www.abc.net.au

This assumes that covid-19 is permanently under control in Australia, with minimum & manageable community outbreaks- so usual AFL crowds can attend around Australia; & no more requirements for AFL Clubs to quarantine.
Quarantining Clubs outside Victoria cost the AFL c. $60m.


T. Nesbitt, West Coast CEO, said 6.11.20 they lost $44m in revenues, & cut costs $36m; but there was still a possibility they might "break even"- their Financial Year ends 31.10.

sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from sportsindustry (@footyindustryAU): "News Wrap | Friday, May 8th | WA AFL teams miss out on home games early, India still plan on coming to Australia, Kayo subs take a 30% hit, RA solvency questions https://t.co/ZI3V1TYArR"

twitter.com

(Go to SportsInd. tweet 6.11- then click on "The West")

As c. 95%+ of Club members at all AFL Clubs did not seek a refund of their 2020 season memberships (but rolled them over to season 2021), the Clubs can't rely on this massive revenue again in 2021. More significant cuts to Club & AFL HQ expenditure are very likely for 2021.

Assuming normal pre-covid conditions apply from start of 2023 (& no repeat of the Melbourne Hotel Quarantine disaster), the Tas. Bid is still strong.
The Bid relies very heavily on tourists coming from Victoria to watch the Tas. 19th team games; & may be an entrant c. 2025.

Geelong is very regularly competitive (& made the GF), & Penrith- Central West NSW (Penrith branded all the local CW GR RL clubs, established Academies in Bathurst, Dubbo, & Forbes, recruited many more CW locals etc ie created CW tribalism: see above post #2666) also made the GF. Both are a further "plus" for small teams in the AFL.






EDIT: M. Sheahan "A LOT OF MONEY IS BEING WASTED AT AFL HOUSE OVER THE YEARS, BECAUSE IT JUST COMES IN, UNTIL COVID CAME"

SEN Melb. Radio Watson & Lyon program 20.10.20

The AFL has long been wasteful & inefficient in its spending- with male GR club & school nos. in a significant, long term per capita decline in Vic., WA, & SA (& Tas. in raw nos.)

M. Sheahan is retiring, & is being unusually blunt about the AFL, & its reprobates, in the SEN interview below. He worked full time for the VFL/AFL from c.1985, into the R. Oakley administration

When Watson asked Sheahan "what did you learn of the mechanics of the AFL, if anything surprised you that you didn't know before", Sheahan said he learnt, from working inside the VFL/AFL

"I used to sit at the Commission meetings...The largesse probably struck me a bit, a lot of money is being wasted at AFL House over the years because it just comes in, until covid came".

SEN Breakfast

SEN Breakfast delivers more analysis and insights on the stories that matter the most to the Melbourne audience. The benchmark when it comes to football experience, Garry, Tim, Bucks, Kane and Kingy's expertise and insight sets the agenda each morning.

www.sen.com.au

(From Watson & Lyon Breakfast programs, scroll down to 20.10.20 program interview with Sheahan. Go to 18 minutes 45 seconds - 19 mins. 50 seconds)

Sheahan worked inside the AFL in the late 80's, when the AFL revenues were FAR lower than in recent times- yet the reprobate Executives were, even then, not reticent at wasting AF funds, with their "largesse".

Most journalists, & AFL & Club Officials (excluding J. Kennett & M. Lloyd), are fearful of repercussions if they mention the AFL's waste of funds & their greed- either of the AFL HQ itself, or the Clubs' Football Department spending etc. (not including player wages)

 

[The_Wookie]

Penrith benefits hugely from Penrith Leagues funding its development programs - the club and leagues have the same parent.

I doubt Sheahan has sat on Committee meetings since the 80s when he worked at AFL House. the Commission of today is vastly different to the VFL Commission of pre 1993.

And Per capita measurements of player numbers are ridiculous.

 

[Rob]

I've got no doubt football department spending was/is completely out of control. But the AFL doesn't have that much influence over most clubs, and given the salary cap what else were the clubs supposed to spend the money on? In the end it became an arms race with one club hiring a full time toenail cutter so therefore every club needed to do it.

Clubs essentially lost the ability to self manage, i.e save for a rainy day. That's a culture the AFL *is* responsible for. The AFL should only have ever provided enough money to clubs to allow them to field a competitive team. The minimum needed to do that is X, the club raises Y, the maximum AFL handout is therefore Y-X. As of last year, most clubs were receiving some form of additional handout, and the responsibility for the club's existence rested more with the AFL than the club itself. Hence the employment of toenail cutters, tattoo artists and all sorts of time wasters that had a negligible impact on performance.
And to be frank, the biggest waste is on facilities. Clubs are announcing massive facility expansions all the time. To use my club as an example, Freo made a big deal out of moving from Freo Oval into new swank facilities that cost a shitload. It was necessary they said. New training oval with some bullshit ability to magically become the size of every ground in the league, various rooms for different purposes, a big new gym, a few different pools and a big wet area with purpose built ice baths. The whole thing cost $100 million or so, with the club contributing roughly $20 million (it's mostly a recreation centre available for the public to use).
Sorry, but a purpose built ice bath makes no ******* difference to recovery than using a sulo bin with a bag of ice in it. It just doesn't. Might provide for better optics, but the body doesn't give a s**t about that. And this whole facility - said to be the best in the league at the time - what impact on performance? SFA. We were bog ordinary the year before, and have been pretty rubbish since. Injuries were bad before, and arguably worse since. The best in the league for injuries this year? Brisbane, who tell us they need a massive new $70m complex to replace their ageing facilities. What bullshit. (I know the Lions aren't paying the full $70m, but it's still a lot for a club that the AFL has forked out big dollars to prop up the last 5 years or so)
The whole thing is an excuse to spend money in order to convince members that the club is doing everything needed to win premierships. I've yet to see a skerrick of evidence that it makes any difference at all.

Rant over.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

I've got no doubt football department spending was/is completely out of control. But the AFL doesn't have that much influence over most clubs, and given the salary cap what else were the clubs supposed to spend the money on? In the end it became an arms race with one club hiring a full time toenail cutter so therefore every club needed to do it.

Clubs essentially lost the ability to self manage, i.e save for a rainy day. That's a culture the AFL *is* responsible for. The AFL should only have ever provided enough money to clubs to allow them to field a competitive team. The minimum needed to do that is X, the club raises Y, the maximum AFL handout is therefore Y-X. As of last year, most clubs were receiving some form of additional handout, and the responsibility for the club's existence rested more with the AFL than the club itself. Hence the employment of toenail cutters, tattoo artists and all sorts of time wasters that had a negligible impact on performance.
And to be frank, the biggest waste is on facilities. Clubs are announcing massive facility expansions all the time. To use my club as an example, Freo made a big deal out of moving from Freo Oval into new swank facilities that cost a shitload. It was necessary they said. New training oval with some bullshit ability to magically become the size of every ground in the league, various rooms for different purposes, a big new gym, a few different pools and a big wet area with purpose built ice baths. The whole thing cost $100 million or so, with the club contributing roughly $20 million (it's mostly a recreation centre available for the public to use).
Sorry, but a purpose built ice bath makes no ******* difference to recovery than using a sulo bin with a bag of ice in it. It just doesn't. Might provide for better optics, but the body doesn't give a sh*t about that. And this whole facility - said to be the best in the league at the time - what impact on performance? SFA. We were bog ordinary the year before, and have been pretty rubbish since. Injuries were bad before, and arguably worse since. The best in the league for injuries this year? Brisbane, who tell us they need a massive new $70m complex to replace their ageing facilities. What bullshit. (I know the Lions aren't paying the full $70m, but it's still a lot for a club that the AFL has forked out big dollars to prop up the last 5 years or so)
The whole thing is an excuse to spend money in order to convince members that the club is doing everything needed to win premierships. I've yet to see a skerrick of evidence that it makes any difference at all.

Rant over.

Well said I think it was a Tom hafey quote were he said a 20 kg weight is the same weather it’s in 5 star gym or your own garage meaning facilities are no excuse