Tasmania set to apply for a provisional AFL licence (aiming to enter competition by 2025)

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,319
13,214
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
It's not so much about talent pool the point that's trying to be made but the fact that it depresses the cyclical nature of bad teams getting good picks. Bad teams like Brisbane who had 4 wins in 2011 got the 12th or so best draft prospect in Billy Longer (pick 8 + Treloar, Shiel, Cameron prelisting, minidraft influence etc). only when they would have had the 2nd best player without them and would have been able to get a Coniglio etc. in their team, rather than being bad for the next 5-6 years and a basket case that the AFL had to fix. On the other hand teams like Sydney and Hawthorn, whose picks were already bad so moving them down a dozen or so more didn't really make a difference. Moving from pick 2 to 12 a lot more damaging than moving from pick 15 to 30, clealry.

The idea being is that if Tassie come in, they can't do the same tihng as it will lock other teams down at the bottom with them too.
As I said the top 500 players are not selected on merit, the next 300 arent as good, otherwise they'd be in the 500. Not rocket science, we all know those on our list who arent up to it, though we do live in hope.
Its about the talent pool ....
 

HPKS

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2012
2,330
2,853
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
It's not so much about talent pool the point that's trying to be made but the fact that it depresses the cyclical nature of bad teams getting good picks. Bad teams like Brisbane who had 4 wins in 2011 got the 12th or so best draft prospect in Billy Longer (pick 8 + Treloar, Shiel, Cameron prelisting, minidraft influence etc). only when they would have had the 2nd best player without them and would have been able to get a Coniglio etc. in their team, rather than being bad for the next 5-6 years and a basket case that the AFL had to fix. On the other hand teams like Sydney and Hawthorn, whose picks were already bad so moving them down a dozen or so more didn't really make a difference. Moving from pick 2 to 12 a lot more damaging than moving from pick 15 to 30, clealry.

The idea being is that if Tassie come in, they can't do the same tihng as it will lock other teams down at the bottom with them too.
Allow tassie to have an extended list plus full academy rights. Gives them huge incentive to kickstart the rebirth of tassie junior development and at the same time doesn’t rip everyone out of the draft. The extended list allows them to stockpile talent for admission & gives the side that real home grown feel. Also allow them RFA rights to any out of contract Tasmanian.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
2,767
1,723
AFL Club
GWS
1. "Carter Report actually puts Tasmania back on the AFL’s map

Greg Baum

By Greg Baum August 20, 2021 — 3.30pm

Q: Who said: “I do think it’s illogical that we subsidise the 10th team in Melbourne, but we won’t subsidise the first team in Tasmania.”
A: Colin Carter, 10 years ago.

Carter has been misunderstood, and perhaps because of it, his report last week has been misrepresented. The ineradicable take-away is that there will be a Tasmanian team in the AFL.
Carter comes originally from Perth and as a kid barracked heartily for WA against Victoria. When he moved to Victoria, he hooked up with Geelong, though he has never lived there, and at length became president.

He has never seen footy as Melbourne’s game, but rather as the nation's game. In 1985, he helped to form the Melbourne competition into a national competition and served on its commission. Without a Tasmanian team, his report says, that competition is incomplete.
Yes, he contemplates a relocation and a joint venture with a Victorian team as options, prompting Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein to snort that they wanted to have their own team, not rent one.

The passion that burns in Tasmania for Australian rules football is obvious.


The passion that burns in Tasmania for Australian rules football is obvious.

Crucially, Carter reports that a new team with its own licence is viable on every metric and through every lens. It would be smaller than the other models to start, and take longer to succeed. It would also be fiercely resisted by the other clubs, who would fear further stretching of the game’s resources. Carter would have been negligent not to cover off on this.
But his report stresses that the business of the AFL is not like any other. If it was, half the clubs would be out of business, yet some have survived literally for a century or more without ever turning a profit. Subsidisation is built into the game.


CREDIT:MATT GOLDING.

Carter makes his business case by demolishing business cases. “Sport doesn’t work that way. A football competition is not just an ‘economic’ industry. It is also a 'social compact' in which large and small revenue teams co-exist for very long times,” he says.
“Unlike in the commercial world, the smaller teams survive, and the larger clubs accept that this is so. That is the ‘social compact’ and this needs to be understood to make sense of what a Tasmanian team means for our competition.”

Carter cites the Green Bay Packers, whose American home town is half the size of Hobart, but who have won 13 championships. Inter alia, he observes that being small and cold is not antithetical to player retention: Green Bay, Christchurch, Manchester. In AFL, it is clubs in the sunniest climes who have struggled with this.

In surveying the landscape, Carter goes to possibly more contentious places than have made the headlines. One is the wooliness in membership figures. Richmond, with a notional 105,000 members, sell just 22,000 11-game general admission memberships. Even more astonishingly, this cohort attends only around two games a year on average.

St Kilda have 7300, Geelong merely 2500, which makes sense when you think that the Cats never play 11 home games in Geelong and 30 per cent of their members live in Melbourne. In a way, they are a de facto joint venture.

Carter wonders if the AFL players might contribute to funding the new Tasmanian club, not materially, but by agreeing to an already-mooted reduction in list sizes of two per club. This would also address the bugbear of dilution of talent. Carter thinks that dilution is a moot point anyway, since Australia’s population has grown faster than the AFL player body politic.

You can hear the grumbling of the players’ body already. You can also hear the clubs growl. Carter reveals that in designing the national competition in 1985, the AFL had thought to introduce two teams each from Perth and Adelaide immediately so as to make sure none could establish an instant monopoly. The extant clubs shot them down.
More broadly on funding, Carter notes that in the NFL, 72 per cent of all the game’s revenue is pooled and shared. In the AFL, the figure is less than 50 per cent. If the AFL were to bend a little towards the NFL way, a new Tasmanian club could be fully funded overnight. But that growl from the clubs would become a howl.

Favourite son Matthew Richardson in a Tasmanian guernsey.

Favourite son Matthew Richardson in a Tasmanian guernsey.

The AFL won’t make a call on a model or inauguration for the Tasmanian team until the COVID fog clears a little. But it’s when and how, not if.

Looking to the further horizon, Carter envisages that the “how” will recede anyway. Geographical connection between a team and a place is loosening in all sports (?- No)
However the Tasmanian team begins, it will become both a local artefact - like MONA - and a “formidable” national brand.

This is, or should be, the AFL’s true business. “The AFL as 'keeper of the code' is more than spin,” Carter says. “It defines the AFL’s obligations as nationwide and even more. The tragedy of football’s past is that there were missed opportunities because they were no-one’s responsibility.” The game had a presence in NSW, Queensland, Papua New Guinea and even New Zealand once, but it was not nurtured.
“Today, taking the long view, Tasmania is now at some risk,” says Carter. “However, the costs of securing it are reasonable. It fulfils the ‘purpose’ of the AFL. It is the right thing to do.(My emphases, & words in brackets)".




2. Wookie's sportsindustry.com.au website 20.8

"Colin Carter says he has emphatically made the case for a 19th AFL licence, adamant critics of his report in Tasmanian football have missed its key recommendation.


Tassie team backlash unfair, says report author
Colin Carter says he has emphatically made the case for a 19th AFL licence, adamant critics of his report in Tasmanian football have missed its key recommendation".
heraldsun.com.au

(Paywall. Can anyone open link, & post here please).

"Defending the Tassie report: It was a ‘stunning step forward’
Colin Carter, responsible for the report into the viability of a Tasmanian AFL team, says critics have completely missed its key recommendation. Read his personal letter".
 
Last edited:

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,717
13,144
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Townsville, Canberra or Perth based are all options, each one has its advantages, I guess it will be down to the money...
Just forget Townsville. Cairns/FNQ at some stage.

WA3. big footy orientated city with a brilliant stadium. A no brainer for me.

ACT1. Should, like Tas1, already be in the AFL.

Many say the AFL should stick to 18 clubs, 1-2 less Vic team should've been the answer to keep to that if was/is the desired outcome. Otherwise we're potentially looking at the 20 teams.
 

Mr Taswegian

Roo Man
May 25, 2019
1,127
447
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The Adelaide Crows is the second team to pledge their support for a Tasmanian AFL team following a board meeting last night. Hopefully we can as many on board before the big vote so we know what our chances are before the vote.
 

Mr Taswegian

Roo Man
May 25, 2019
1,127
447
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Just forget Townsville. Cairns/FNQ at some stage.

WA3. big footy orientated city with a brilliant stadium. A no brainer for me.

ACT1. Should, like Tas1, already be in the AFL.

Many say the AFL should stick to 18 clubs, 1-2 less Vic team should've been the answer to keep to that if was/is the desired outcome. Otherwise we're potentially looking at the 20 teams.
Almost no hope of any team relocating,we must put our full focus on to a 19 th and if that can't happen than I understand.
 

Engimal v3

AAAAAAAAHH AAAAAAgoblins insIDe me getAAAAHHH AHHH
Sep 21, 2017
7,998
15,493
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Tasmania

In surveying the landscape, Carter goes to possibly more contentious places than have made the headlines. One is the wooliness in membership figures. Richmond, with a notional 105,000 members, sell just 22,000 11-game general admission memberships. Even more astonishingly, this cohort attends only around two games a year on average.

St Kilda have 7300, Geelong merely 2500, which makes sense when you think that the Cats never play 11 home games in Geelong and 30 per cent of their members live in Melbourne. In a way, they are a de facto joint venture.
That's insane. I had no idea 11 game memberships were so low
 

pOleK

Professional Footy Watcher
Oct 27, 2014
1,828
2,063
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
That's insane. I had no idea 11 game memberships were so low
I don't think it's too surprising, it's just there are so many better more friendly, flexible alternatives. I'm only a 3 game membership and as much as I'd love to attend all 11 games there are just so many outside factors that deny me from doing so. 1 in 26 Australians are a member of a club so it's not unreasonable to say that most members have other interests, sports, plans or simply don't want to drain themselves and act as if it's a chore to go to the footy every fortnight because they've paid for there season ticket.
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,482
17,938
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
That's insane. I had no idea 11 game memberships were so low
Yeah I reckon that's rubbish, or at least misleading. It's probably referring to 11 game *GA* members, when most 11 game ticketed members would have a reserved seat. Geelong especially would have very few GA members as there is very little GA at Kardinia Park. West Coast would have 0 11 game GA members!

GA itself is a pretty ancient concept, dating back to the days of suburban grounds with no reserved seating. You would hope any Tassie team would have only a small GA area - if half their grounds are GA then they're screwed financially. You can't make a small market, small stadium team work unless there's big reserved seat premiums.
 
Last edited:

Engimal v3

AAAAAAAAHH AAAAAAgoblins insIDe me getAAAAHHH AHHH
Sep 21, 2017
7,998
15,493
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Tasmania
Yeah I reckon that's rubbish, or at least misleading. It's probably referring to 11 game *GA* members, when most 11 game ticketed members would have a reserved seat. Geelong especially would have very few GA members as there is very little GA at Kardinia Park. West Coast would have 0 11 game GA members!

GA itself is a pretty ancient concept, dating back to the days of suburban grounds with no reserved seating. You would hope any Tassie team would have only a small GA area - if half their grounds are GA then they're screwed financially. You can't make a small market, small stadium team work unless there's big reserved seat premiums.
I would have thought most 11 game members are GA.
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,482
17,938
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I would have thought most 11 game members are GA.
Maybe it's a Victorian thing. But even at the MCG there's not huge amounts of GA. At Docklands they usually don't let you on the first 2 levels with a GA ticket only.

But you seriously reckon Richmond would have less than 20k reserved seat members? If that's true, no wonder they don't want to report their membership revenue figures separately.
 

Engimal v3

AAAAAAAAHH AAAAAAgoblins insIDe me getAAAAHHH AHHH
Sep 21, 2017
7,998
15,493
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Tasmania
Maybe it's a Victorian thing. But even at the MCG there's not huge amounts of GA. At Docklands they usually don't let you on the first 2 levels with a GA ticket only.
Not level 2, but often sit in great level 1 GA seats at Docklands. Might be easier with the smaller North crowd.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,482
17,938
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
Not level 2, but often sit in great level 1 GA seats at Docklands. Might be easier with the smaller North crowd.
Yeah, I was gonna say there would be plenty of Richmond games that would be mostly ticketed. I went to a Richmond v Adelaide game at the G a few years ago and I got banished to top level behind the goals with a GA ticket. There would be a few games (against other big Melbourne clubs) I would have thought that GA wouldn't even get you in.
 

BringBackTorps

Club Legend
Jan 5, 2017
2,767
1,723
AFL Club
GWS
1. "Tassie AFL team: Report author Colin Carter outlines how critics got it wrong with crucial finding

The man responsible for the report into the viability of a Tasmanian AFL team says critics have completely missed its key point. Read his personal letter.

Jon Ralph August 21, 2021 - 8:06AM
News Corp Australia Sports Newsroom
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/.../966b030b9099fb02908d54120fcbccfc#share-tools

Colin Carter says he has emphatically made the case for a 19th AFL licence, adamant critics of his report in Tasmanian football have missed its key recommendation.

Carter on Friday said it would have been pointless for the AFL to ask club presidents to vote on a new side in coming months given the certainty they would not pass a resolution.
Writing in an exclusive column in News Corp, he said the vast majority of his 22-page report states the case for a 19th licence for the first time in an official AFL report.
He believes the report is a significant step forward for the Tasmanian case for its own AFL team.
He said part of his brief from the AFL and Tasmanian government was to consider relocation and joint ventures, as unpalatable as they might be for any of the AFL’s existing clubs.
But Carter said it was up to the AFL Commission to now approve a 19th team before convincing clubs of the positives of an extra AFL team.

Colin Carter reveals it was the first time the AFL had agreed that Tasmania should have a licence.


Colin Carter reveals it was the first time the AFL had agreed that Tasmania should have a licence.

“Regrettably, this past week has been marked by attacks on the report — rarely for its content and mostly for failing to include timelines,” he writes.
“It is like having a fight about setting a wedding date before even agreeing to get married.
“The unresolved issue is not about timelines but whether Tasmania should even have a team. My report unequivocally says ‘yes’. What got lost this week was that stunning step forward for Tasmania. For the first time, the AFL agreed that Tasmania should have a licence.
“I am hopeful that the clubs will support the proposal provided care is taken to work through the business case with them and to methodically and carefully address any lingering issues [More Tas. govt. $] or doubts they might have. Their support cannot and should not be taken for granted.”

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said on Friday he maintained a strong relationship with Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein, who has threatened to pull all funding for the AFL until there is a timeline for the new team.
“He is a good fellow. I rang him yesterday. We will continue to talk to the Tasmanian government and the premier about what he wants and in the context of the Carter report what works for the industry as well.”



Colin Carter’s personal response. Author of the Carter report into a Tasmanian AFL team

It is a week now since my report on Tasmania’s case for an AFL Licence was made public and much of the ongoing debate has been disappointing.

My report emphatically supports Tasmania being represented in our national AFL competition, even as a 19th licence.
For the first time, the AFL has publicly endorsed this position.

What many are missing is understanding of the issue that must be solved before Tasmania can get a team. And so, let’s start with two unassailable facts:
Fact 1: There have been many reports arguing the case for Tasmania
Fact 2: Tasmania does not have a team

It doesn’t take much insight to see that the issue here is that those who make the decision — the AFL Commission and the AFL clubs — have not in the past been convinced by evidence previously produced.
If starting a team in Tasmania was so clearly in football’s interests, it would have happened long ago.
As Paul Keating famously reminded us, you can back in self-interest every time.
So perhaps the problem is that any case made so far, while convincing to those already supporting a Tasmanian team, has not been convincing to the doubters.

Throughout my work, there were many interviewees who said that they’d love Tasmania to have a licence, but they were unsure that the numbers would stack up.
That the AFL Commission, over the past 35 years since the formation of the national competition, has never once recommended this step to the clubs is a sure sign that it too has never been convinced.
As I started this project, several AFL club presidents told me that they believed that the AFL presidents, if asked to vote now, would vote the Tasmanian case down because not enough were convinced that the numbers work. [Tas. govt. will, IMO, be forced to contribute much more than the "...up to $11m pa" it offered in its 5.2.20 Business Case- probably c. $20m pa].
Any understanding of how these things work makes it obvious that the most important — and difficult — task is to persuade those who will make the final decision.
While my report is unequivocal in its view that Tasmania should have a team, it can’t have a team until the Commission and the majority of the presidents decide it will have a team.

Early in my project, it became clear to me that the Tasmania case could be justified, even on economic grounds.


'Carter says early in his project it became clear that the Tasmania case could be justified, even on economic grounds'.

And so, around 20 of the 22 pages in my report are devoted to demolishing the common arguments against a Tasmanian licence and, importantly, showing that the business case for Tasmanian passes the test — economic and pub. I have used economic and business arguments to refute the usual commercial doubts about Tasmania’s case.
Based on some early feedback from hard-nosed commercial realists, there is a real chance that I have been successful in that endeavour.

My Terms of Reference from the AFL also asked that I make comment about other options, including a relocation. Briefing materials from the Tasmanian Premier’s office also included comment on potential relocation as a consideration. The joint-venture idea was floated during the project which meant some obligation that I consider it.
I was very clear in the report that a 19th Licence is recommended if these other options fell over.

Regrettably, this past week has been marked by attacks on the report — rarely for its content and mostly for failing to include timelines.
It is like having a fight about setting a wedding date before even agreeing to get married.
The unresolved issue is not about timelines but whether Tasmania should even have a team.
My report unequivocally says ‘yes’.

Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein and Carter at UTAS Stadium in Launceston. Picture: Chris Kidd

Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein and Carter at UTAS Stadium in Launceston. Picture: Chris Kidd

What got lost this week was that stunning step forward for Tasmania. For the first time, the AFL agreed that Tasmania should have a licence! That is huge progress, but the next difficult steps are still to take place.

After discussions with the Tasmanian Government as to its unwavering economic support for a team, we must then persuade most of the 18 clubs to support a new licence at a time when Covid is placing their finances under huge stress.
I am hopeful that the clubs will support the proposal provided care is taken to work through the business case with them and to methodically and carefully address any lingering issues or doubts they might have. Their support cannot and should not be taken for granted.

A relocation, even if unlikely, would be readily supported by the clubs because it maintains the competition at 18 teams.
The much more challenging issue facing our code’s decision makers is whether a 19th licence can be justified.
My hope is that my report has adequately answered that question (My words in brackets).







2. A few days ago Adelaide FC Chairman J. Olsen has formally committed his Club to supporting a Tas. 19th team to enter the AFL.

 
Last edited:

Canberra Pear

Senior List
Nov 26, 2016
292
361
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Does anybody know if this sponsorship from Mars is still on the cards?


Mars "guaranteed $4 million if the bid is accepted by the AFL".

It was from 2008, so I'm not sure if this still counts as the same bid, or if it was a perpetual guarantee for eventual acceptance.

The offer was for $4m over three years.
 

Mr Taswegian

Roo Man
May 25, 2019
1,127
447
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Does anybody know if this sponsorship from Mars is still on the cards?


Mars "guaranteed $4 million if the bid is accepted by the AFL".

It was from 2008, so I'm not sure if this still counts as the same bid, or if it was a perpetual guarantee for eventual acceptance.

The offer was for $4m over three years.
Hopefully this is still a goer and we are going to need a lot more corporates to come on board for Tasmania to have a chance of being viable long term because we can't rely on government backing forever.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,802
32,627
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
Does anybody know if this sponsorship from Mars is still on the cards?


Mars "guaranteed $4 million if the bid is accepted by the AFL".

It was from 2008, so I'm not sure if this still counts as the same bid, or if it was a perpetual guarantee for eventual acceptance.

The offer was for $4m over three years.
Mars then sponsored Carlton, and then the AFL
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,482
17,938
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I don't think getting a major sponsor would be a problem. Tasmania as a state is a pretty solid brand to be associated with and a Tassie AFL club would carry that with them, at least initially.

The challenge is finding 2nd tier sponsors and 100 buyers for $50k corporate boxes. Which is where most of the corporate revenue comes from.
 

threenewpadlocks

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2012
11,877
16,265
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I don't think getting a major sponsor would be a problem. Tasmania as a state is a pretty solid brand to be associated with and a Tassie AFL club would carry that with them, at least initially.

The challenge is finding 2nd tier sponsors and 100 buyers for $50k corporate boxes. Which is where most of the corporate revenue comes from.
Which is where my idea of playing 1-2 home games a season at the MCG against a big 4 Victorian club and to get more corporate revenue in 1-2 Victorian home games than 9-10 Tassie home games comes from. It's not ridiculous, and Tasmania would be far from the only team to have to effectively "sell" home games. If GWS, Gold Coast, Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn (although Hawthorn don't do it out of financial necessity now) all have to do it, why is it too good for Tasmania? Is a Tasmania team only playing 9 games rather than 11 in the state better than not having a Tasmania team at all?
 

Canberra Pear

Senior List
Nov 26, 2016
292
361
Canberra, ACT
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Which is where my idea of playing 1-2 home games a season at the MCG against a big 4 Victorian club and to get more corporate revenue in 1-2 Victorian home games than 9-10 Tassie home games comes from. It's not ridiculous, and Tasmania would be far from the only team to have to effectively "sell" home games. If GWS, Gold Coast, Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn (although Hawthorn don't do it out of financial necessity now) all have to do it, why is it too good for Tasmania? Is a Tasmania team only playing 9 games rather than 11 in the state better than not having a Tasmania team at all?
I like the idea, but there won't be enough games in Tasmania to take any away.

Of those Melbourne-based teams, their fans still get 13 games to watch in Melbourne. Gold Coast still hosts 10 and GWS has 9 Sydney games (including the Sydney derby).

Fans in Hobart and Launceston will already only get 5 or 6 games (depending how they alternate). Take further games away and 4 or 5 games each in Hobart and Launceston is far too few.
 

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
2,532
2,755
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Which is where my idea of playing 1-2 home games a season at the MCG against a big 4 Victorian club and to get more corporate revenue in 1-2 Victorian home games than 9-10 Tassie home games comes from. It's not ridiculous, and Tasmania would be far from the only team to have to effectively "sell" home games. If GWS, Gold Coast, Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn (although Hawthorn don't do it out of financial necessity now) all have to do it, why is it too good for Tasmania? Is a Tasmania team only playing 9 games rather than 11 in the state better than not having a Tasmania team at all?
Because the revenue generated by tourism when the big Vic clubs play in Tasmania is half the reason the government wants a team.
 

Walshawk

Club Legend
Mar 24, 2017
2,532
2,755
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's not so much about talent pool the point that's trying to be made but the fact that it depresses the cyclical nature of bad teams getting good picks. Bad teams like Brisbane who had 4 wins in 2011 got the 12th or so best draft prospect in Billy Longer (pick 8 + Treloar, Shiel, Cameron prelisting, minidraft influence etc). only when they would have had the 2nd best player without them and would have been able to get a Coniglio etc. in their team, rather than being bad for the next 5-6 years and a basket case that the AFL had to fix. On the other hand teams like Sydney and Hawthorn, whose picks were already bad so moving them down a dozen or so more didn't really make a difference. Moving from pick 2 to 12 a lot more damaging than moving from pick 15 to 30, clealry.

The idea being is that if Tassie come in, they can't do the same tihng as it will lock other teams down at the bottom with them too.
Simply give Tas every second the first row or three pics then every second pick. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. That way the bottom teams still get a decent pick. Lots of ways to do it that will be palatable to the existing clubs.
 

Mr Taswegian

Roo Man
May 25, 2019
1,127
447
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Alistair Clarkson is likely to join Tasmania's AFL working group and it has been announced that tasmania will require only 7 AFL team presidents to vote in favour of a team, definitely another boost to our chances.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad