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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elite Pete said:
😂🤣. All this would be sorted out and I reckon the AFL presidents would have a fair idea how the money allocation would work because they wouldn’t want their piece of the pie eaten. I think the WAFC would have a decent bank balance that they may wish to help them Purchase another club if they think it will work long term.
Click to expand...

You know the WA model is not like SA?
 
Kwality said:
We need to weaken the AFL player pool further by adding more 2nd tier players or kids.
Click to expand...
well the afl just cut 2 teams worth of players from league lists, so they dont even need to increase the current player pool to introduce 2 new teams.

besides just from our team alone short and baker came from the rookie list and both are sublimely skilled players well worthy of being on a list. Dylan grimes came from the preseason draft and we know how good he is. lambert, pickett and broad were mature age recruits from the lower leagues and again all very deserving of being on a list. the worst of the lot is castagna, but hes not any worse than inconsistent small forwards from previous years. and thats just from the gf team. throw in soldo (missed through injury) who is easily the equivalent of your mid-lower ruckman from years past, and aarts who was probably unlucky to miss out to castagna. All those players were from the PSD or beyond, there is plenty of legit (not good only because theyre in a good team) talent to be found at the bottom end of the draft.

20 years ago when there was 14 teams, there were 1.22 million people per afl team. Even with todays population, there would be 1.27 million people per afl team with 20 teams. actually more people per team. yet 20 years ago was the supposed golden age of footy.

the player pool is fine. people have rose tinted views of past years, but whenever i go back and look at highlights of even 20 year old games, i see it full of players who are 'highly skilled' yet are kicking pie floaters all over the place. daicos was a marvel yet every half bit shitballer nowadays can do what he did. people talk about how being a big forward is harder now than ever, yet never think to go back the other way and realise that maybe the 'skills' in past years werent 'better' because the players were better, but because what they were doing was easier.

any 'issues' with modern footy arent to do with the players. its the rules/umpires and the coaching. sort that out and i reckon we could support 22 teams even.
 
theyellowsash said:
well the afl just cut 2 teams worth of players from league lists, so they dont even need to increase the current player pool to introduce 2 new teams.

besides just from our team alone short and baker came from the rookie list and both are sublimely skilled players well worthy of being on a list. Dylan grimes came from the preseason draft and we know how good he is. lambert, pickett and broad were mature age recruits from the lower leagues and again all very deserving of being on a list. the worst of the lot is castagna, but hes not any worse than inconsistent small forwards from previous years. and thats just from the gf team. throw in soldo (missed through injury) who is easily the equivalent of your mid-lower ruckman from years past, and aarts who was probably unlucky to miss out to castagna. All those players were from the PSD or beyond, there is plenty of legit (not good only because theyre in a good team) talent to be found at the bottom end of the draft.

20 years ago when there was 14 teams, there were 1.22 million people per afl team. Even with todays population, there would be 1.27 million people per afl team with 20 teams. actually more people per team. yet 20 years ago was the supposed golden age of footy.

the player pool is fine. people have rose tinted views of past years, but whenever i go back and look at highlights of even 20 year old games, i see it full of players who are 'highly skilled' yet are kicking pie floaters all over the place. daicos was a marvel yet every half bit shitballer nowadays can do what he did. people talk about how being a big forward is harder now than ever, yet never think to go back the other way and realise that maybe the 'skills' in past years werent 'better' because the players were better, but because what they were doing was easier.

any 'issues' with modern footy arent to do with the players. its the rules/umpires and the coaching. sort that out and i reckon we could support 22 teams even.
Click to expand...
Yes but most of the population growth is from immigration. There is more than a millions full blooded Chinese here and half a million from India. That is hardly going to increase the AFL player pool.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

theyellowsash said:
well the afl just cut 2 teams worth of players from league lists, so they dont even need to increase the current player pool to introduce 2 new teams.

besides just from our team alone short and baker came from the rookie list and both are sublimely skilled players well worthy of being on a list. Dylan grimes came from the preseason draft and we know how good he is. lambert, pickett and broad were mature age recruits from the lower leagues and again all very deserving of being on a list. the worst of the lot is castagna, but hes not any worse than inconsistent small forwards from previous years. and thats just from the gf team. throw in soldo (missed through injury) who is easily the equivalent of your mid-lower ruckman from years past, and aarts who was probably unlucky to miss out to castagna. All those players were from the PSD or beyond, there is plenty of legit (not good only because theyre in a good team) talent to be found at the bottom end of the draft.

20 years ago when there was 14 teams, there were 1.22 million people per afl team. Even with todays population, there would be 1.27 million people per afl team with 20 teams. actually more people per team. yet 20 years ago was the supposed golden age of footy.

the player pool is fine. people have rose tinted views of past years, but whenever i go back and look at highlights of even 20 year old games, i see it full of players who are 'highly skilled' yet are kicking pie floaters all over the place. daicos was a marvel yet every half bit shitballer nowadays can do what he did. people talk about how being a big forward is harder now than ever, yet never think to go back the other way and realise that maybe the 'skills' in past years werent 'better' because the players were better, but because what they were doing was easier.

any 'issues' with modern footy arent to do with the players. its the rules/umpires and the coaching. sort that out and i reckon we could support 22 teams even.
Click to expand...

I go by the duds on my teams list, those listed that didnt play a game as an example. Love Subi & its players but its a bloody successful 2nd tier side for a reason - there are AFL players that transition through such as Sam Menegola.
I see the AFL as elite but its not.
 
Elite Pete said:
Do a google search plenty out there. Even Melbourne President saying a 19th team doesn’t make sense without a 20th.
Click to expand...
I listen to SEN most days, read all article on a Tas team and have not heard a single mention of a Tas team being dependant on a 20th team. The Melbourne President whoever he/she is hardly a mover and shaker.
Can you think of a reason why a 20th team is required to have a 19th?
 
Walshawk said:
I listen to SEN most days, read all article on a Tas team and have not heard a single mention of a Tas team being dependant on a 20th team. The Melbourne President whoever he/she is hardly a mover and shaker.
Can you think of a reason why a 20th team is required to have a 19th?
Click to expand...

It allows players a break so thats a plus.

PS Melbournes president is Glen Bartlett, an original Eagle in 1987, from East Perth FC.
 
I can't see Tassie getting a team at anytime. By the end of this decade Canberra's population will be greater than all of Tasmania and with two large towns (Queanbeyan and Wagga Wagga) within an hour or so it would be the better long term option in terms of growth and support.
 
Walshawk said:
I listen to SEN most days, read all article on a Tas team and have not heard a single mention of a Tas team being dependant on a 20th team. The Melbourne President whoever he/she is hardly a mover and shaker.
Can you think of a reason why a 20th team is required to have a 19th?
Click to expand...
Peter Gordon has also mentioned it. 2 government officials have put it out there from 2 different areas from Perth as well. I also not saying it is depended on it but if they want to cash in on TV rights a team having the bye isn’t the best way about it. Look at all the big leagues around the world they all have even numbers for a reason. Fixture plays as part but having 1 team
Sit out every week doesn’t maximise the income.
Either or I hope Tassie get a team but I do think a 20th licence would follow it within 2 years.
 
And to put it another way, I think if there was a standout locations for that 20th licence that could fund itself for most part within 10 years the Tassie licence would have been granted already for 2025
 
Elite Pete said:
Peter Gordon has also mentioned it. 2 government officials have put it out there from 2 different areas from Perth as well. I also not saying it is depended on it but if they want to cash in on TV rights a team having the bye isn’t the best way about it. Look at all the big leagues around the world they all have even numbers for a reason. Fixture plays as part but having 1 team
Sit out every week doesn’t maximise the income.
Either or I hope Tassie get a team but I do think a 20th licence would follow it within 2 years.
Click to expand...
There are two byes already, as there would be with 19 teams.
 
Walshawk said:
There are two byes already, as there would be with 19 teams.
Click to expand...
2 byes? You counting the before finals round? Which doesn’t really count because they have that as a ‘no reason to have players rest before finals’ which wouldn’t change if you have a your ‘1st bye’ in the 1st month of the season. 1 bye over 3 weeks is the current structure. The fixture is only be more uneven then it all ready is with forced byes every week. The uneven fixture is seen as a bigger issue in footy then Tassie not having a team. Time will tell but im going with most of the people in the know that have said if there is a 19th side it’s highly likely a 20th side would be right behind it. I think it will all come down to TV rights, if the huge dollars are there so will Tassie and team20.
 
Elite Pete said:
2 byes? You counting the before finals round? Which doesn’t really count because they have that as a ‘no reason to have players rest before finals’ which wouldn’t change if you have a your ‘1st bye’ in the 1st month of the season. 1 bye over 3 weeks is the current structure. The fixture is only be more uneven then it all ready is with forced byes every week. The uneven fixture is seen as a bigger issue in footy then Tassie not having a team. Time will tell but im going with most of the people in the know that have said if there is a 19th side it’s highly likely a 20th side would be right behind it. I think it will all come down to TV rights, if the huge dollars are there so will Tassie and team20.
Click to expand...
Yes, the current season has two byes. As I have previously posted, you can simply give the top 13 teams a bye in the last round. Keeps the current structure and allows for the extra 9 games. No need for a 20th team to get the extra games over 24 weeks.
 
Time will tell but can’t see the point of having a bye every week and a team sitting out. Won’t increase TV revenue dollars and then just cutting into the 18 other teams pie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Elite Pete said:
Time will tell but can’t see the point of having a bye every week and a team sitting out. Won’t increase TV revenue dollars and then just cutting into the 18 other teams pie.
Click to expand...

Can't have that, theirs never enough pie for clubs.

I'm sure they have lots of things they could spend more money on.

More staff, bigger training venues, overseas 'research; trips etc etc.
 
madmug said:
Can't have that, theirs never enough pie for clubs.

I'm sure they have lots of things they could spend more money on.

More staff, bigger training venues, overseas 'research; trips etc etc.
Click to expand...

I still remember Port going off to Dubai to do "heat training".

The kicker? When they were away, it was hotter in Adelaide than it was in Dubai.

Ah, those were the days.
 
Prince Imperial said:
The doom and gloom narrative about the state of grassroots football in Tasmania is not supported by official figures that show a 34% growth in club-based participation in the state from 2016-19.

This recent draft report on facilities provides significant detail about participation across all regions and indicates there are an additional 2264 males and 2258 females involved in clubs and Auskick centres.


None of this supports the common unevidenced allegations that the AFL is underfunding Tasmanian grassroots football and that the Hawthorn and North matches do nothing for the game.
Click to expand...

In my post #2788 above, Bid Chairman B. Godfrey said

" They're (Tas. GR Nos.) 22% off in terms of players per capita than they were 20 years ago, so it (HFC & NMFC playing in Tas.- my words & emphasis) hasn't worked".
Therefore, whilst it is pleasing there has been growth from 2016-2019, the total club & Auskick nos. are now down 22% per capita cf 2000. Also, the boom & big increase of c .2258 female Auskick & Club nos. from 2016-2019 indicates the male club % growth is much smaller.
Godfrey has also said that, in 2000, Tas. had the highest GR per capita nos. in Australia. The NT now holds this proud claim.

This link below contains the Tas. Task Force Bid Documentation presented to the AFL on 6.2.20. The Bid had its current figures & future estimates independently assessed by financial experts prior to release.

AFAIK, no one (inc. the AFL) has publicly challenged, yet alone rebutted, its figures & analysis (Even though B. Godfrey made an audacious public challenge c. 7.2.20 for anyone to publicly rebut its specific figures, reasoning, or conclusions etc.)
From page 18-22, it outlines the decline of Tas. AF (backed up by research from independent specialist Sports' Consultancy Co. Gemba).


Why do you think that Tas. AF GR nos. are down 22% per capita, cf 2000?
Since basketball & soccer nos. have exploded in Tas. cf 20 years ago, & are now at record raw & per capita nos. (Tas. soccer FFT Annual Report nos. have previously been included in this Thread), it suggests AFL underfunding & mismanagement are primary reasons for the GR per capita decline.


Prince Imperial said:
Well, the elite level can help stimulate general interest in the sport and encourage youngsters to take part. The boom in women's grassroot football following the creation of the AFLW is evidence of that.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has worked very well for the AF GR in Brisbane, GCFC, Swans, & GWS- & is exactly the reason Tas. wants, & deserves, its own AFL Club! Local role models & tribalism! And local, branded expert Pathways.


Elite Pete said:
Peter Gordon has also mentioned it
Click to expand...
I am not aware that Peter Gordon (who supports Tas. joining as the 19th team) has said that if Tas. becomes the 19th team, it automatically follows there must soon be a 20th team very quickly (cf a 20th Club at some undetermined time in the future).
Can you provide a link?


The_Wookie said:
...conversely the league has pretty much held the line that no team in Tasmania is viable in their opinion - and thats been AFL/VFL Commission opionion for 35 years.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Both A. Demetriou& G. McLachlan have said previously several times (including in 2019) that (paraphrasing) " When the AFL expands next, Tasmania will probably be the next team to join".
Both Demetriou & R. Oakley in 2019 gave support for Tas. to join as the 19th team. R. Oakley said "It's the right thing to do. It would be well regarded by the football community" in Australia.
 
Last edited:
BringBackTorps said:
I disagree. Both A. Demetriou& G. McLachlan have said previously several times (including in 2019) that (paraphrasing) " When the AFL expands next, Tasmania will probably be the next team to join".
Both Demetriou & R. Oakley in 2019 gave support for Tas. to join as the 19th team. R. Oakley said "It's the right thing to do. It would be well regarded by the football community".
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you like it doesnt change all the other assertions for 30 years that the league believes it not to be viable. Nor does either statement say that the league has begun planning or has any plans to expand at this time. This is nothing like the GWS/Gold Coast planning and announcements. This is literally words with no meaningul action.
 
BringBackTorps said:
In my post#2788

In my post #2788 above, Bid Chairman B. Godfrey said

" They're (Tas. GR Nos.) are 22% off in terms of players per capita than they were 20 years ago, so it (HFC & NMFC playing in Tas- my words & emphasis) hasn't worked".
Therefore, whilst it is pleasing there has been growth from 2016-2019, the total club & Auskick nos. are now down 22% per capita cf 2000. Also, the big increase of c .2258 female Auskick & Club nos. from 2016-2019 indicates the male club % growth is much smaller.
Godfrey has also said that, in 2020, Tas. had the highest GR per capita nos. in Australia.

Why do you think that Tas. AF GR nos. are down 22% per capita, cf 2000?
Since basketball & soccer nos. are booming in Tas. cf 20 years ago, & are at record raw & per capita nos. (Tas. soccer FFT Annual Report nos. have previously been included in this Thread), it suggests AFL underfunding & mismanagement are primary reasons for the per capita decline.
Click to expand...

Demographic change is the main reason. Tasmania's population has aged considerably over that period and the overseas migration it has received are people with no interest in football. There are so many choices these days for young people including massively popular global (and largely non-contact) sports like soccer and basketball whilst work and weekend shopping and other things occupy younger people's lives.

Our game, until relatively recently, has hugely lagged soccer and basketball in terms of female participation and this has also been a significant factor. Per capita is a pretty poor way of making assessments.
 
Prince Imperial said:
Demographic change is the main reason. Tasmania's population has aged considerably over that period and the overseas migration it has received are people with no interest in football. There are so many choices these days for young people including massively popular global (and largely non-contact) sports like soccer and basketball whilst work and weekend shopping and other things occupy younger people's lives.

Our game, until relatively recently, has hugely lagged soccer and basketball in terms of female participation and this has also been a significant factor. Per capita is a pretty poor way of making assessments.
Click to expand...

Its funny that BF posters say Melbourne's growth shows it can support 10 in its region, despite much of that growth being from immigration.

So Immigration Melbourne, good.

Immigration Tasmania, bad.

Tasmania is aging, so is the rest of the country. Incidentally from the 2016 census, Vic kids 0-14 was 18.2% of the total population. Tasmanians 0-14 was 17.7%. So not a lot of difference.
 
madmug said:
Its funny that BF posters say Melbourne's growth shows it can support 10 in its region, despite much of that growth being from immigration.

So Immigration Melbourne, good.

Immigration Tasmania, bad.

Tasmania is aging, so is the rest of the country. Incidentally from the 2016 census, Vic kids 0-14 was 18.2% of the total population. Tasmanians 0-14 was 17.7%. So not a lot of difference.
Click to expand...

The context is important here. No one is saying Melbourne should have extra teams outright. People have said that why would you give Tasmania team when on population, economy and growth statistics, Melbourne should have another team first. Its specifically for people that cite Tasmanias population and per capita rates.
 
madmug said:
Its funny that BF posters say Melbourne's growth shows it can support 10 in its region, despite much of that growth being from immigration.

So Immigration Melbourne, good.

Immigration Tasmania, bad.

Tasmania is aging, so is the rest of the country. Incidentally from the 2016 census, Vic kids 0-14 was 18.2% of the total population. Tasmanians 0-14 was 17.7%. So not a lot of difference.
Click to expand...

My response was in relation to the per capita figure argument. Everywhere in Australia, we will get some growth in football participation/interest as a result of foreign immigration. It's the large size of it in Victoria relative to other states that lends support to the increasing viability of the Vic clubs. Victoria has also done very well in the interstate migration stakes in recent years as well which helps.
 
The_Wookie said:
The context is important here. No one is saying Melbourne should have extra teams outright. People have said that why would you give Tasmania team when on population, economy and growth statistics, Melbourne should have another team first. Its specifically for people that cite Tasmanias population and per capita rates.
Click to expand...

I was answering an above post throwing some demographic opinions about. So I added some figures.

The Tasmania business case shows a TasTeam would be better off than some current Vic clubs.

A big reason being that Government (both parties agree) that an AFL team would be a big part of the Tourism strategy.

Also it'd add add social benefits of unity & confidence. Things politicians agree we need.

Its clear we can sustain a team.

Unfortunately It seems to suits the AFL to keep draining Tasmania. Such is really against their self anointed stewardship of the game overall.

Unless of course such 'stewardship' is really only about ripping resources from across the country to support the marginal suburban clubs of Melbourne
 
But doesn’t maximise it and that depends on how the fixture would be structured. Teams
Copping the bye in week 1,2 wouldn’t be happy. Harder to sell 1 added team to the broadcasters than 1 GAME a week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice 2024 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings and other Industry thread
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
387
Views
19K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
Tasmania: From License reveal to set up - what we know
Replies
17
Views
1K
____
____
Coolangatta
  • Poll
Moved Thread If Tasmania gets the 19th license, what state or territory would you like to see team 20 based in?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
227
Views
11K
Walshawk
Walshawk
anchor man
Tassie
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
152
Views
8K
Rob
Rob
lionshine
  • Poll
20th AFL Team
99 100 101 102 103
Replies
3K
Views
99K
Coolangatta
Coolangatta
D
New players for a team. How does that work?
Replies
6
Views
1K
LoungeLizard
L
Walshawk
  • Poll
GWS is the AFL's biggest problem - not North, GC, or Tassie
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
875
Views
42K
PenrithGWS
PenrithGWS

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top