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

---

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Mr Taswegian]

This is the best foot forward we have ever done so far. Really is now or never. I wish us good luck but I not getting my hopes up. Mac Point, for example, is a huge commitment.

As a Hobart resident, I am all for the bigger games in Launceston, especially if we are stuck with Blundstone. Just a better stadium.

It probaly won't be popular with a lot of southern supporters,but Cricket Tas has indicated Blundstone couldn't be upgraded to hold more than 22500,so it will need to do until a new stadium is built in Hobart.

 

[The_Wookie]

"The AFL would need to provide access to the same model of AFL annual distributions that other member Clubs currently receive. Elsewhere, we have considered the equity of this and believe a Tasmanian licence would add broadcast or content value to the AFL and should therefore justify its participation in these distributions. Smaller Clubs in 2018 typically received in excess of $22M – while that could be a reasonable request of the AFL in pursuit and support of a Tasmanian licence, we have modelled just $17M. "

Asking for 17m + 8 million in government support each year. Im not sure thats a winning argument.

Report fail to note that the size of a Tasmanian tv audience is tiny - top AFL games rate around 45k. And under the AFLs current broadcast model would generally only be seen in Tasmania for the most part. Tasmania is entirely a regional tv market and the smallest in the country. Im not sure that its worth to league rights is what people think it is.

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

It's also bringing more people to live in Tassie, 42 players plus coaches and staff.

It baffles me how AFL is the only sport in the world that suffers a go home factor.

By bringing a club down there, I think it will have a flow on affect for the Gov, where there's the possibility of more business moving or starting there due to an AFL side set up there. If Geelong can be successful in the AFL market, so can Tassie. They need to play either SAT night or Sunday at home, so it doesn't impact local footy.

I think if you build it the people will come, we actually need more sides outside of Melbourne.

The AFL need to bring in first rounders have 5 year deals, so there not using interstate clubs as stop gap measures for 2 years, where the game will grow outside of Victoria.

Yes locals going is better than staying home watching tv. But tourists from say melb (or syd/adel/bne/gc/per) would be where the govt gets their $100m return from $10m outlay from.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

No games in Melbourne make a loss. Dont fall for the club line. Games make a loss only because they traditionally pay match fees out of gate reciepts. What this doesnt account for is memberships and reserved seating, so a club having to "write a check" to the stadium is only having to do so because they already got paid for tens of thousands of their attendees in advance.

If there not making a loss on those games in Melbourne why are hawthorn and north bothering to come to Tasmania ? I’m sure there not doing it just for fun

 

[Tasmanian saint]

The big problem having government paying big money every year is what happens if we have a change in government and they decide they will cut the funding for a team.I believe it is very important the team pushes to get as much of the required dollars from sponsers as possible,relying on government to fork out year after year is not a good thing at all.

Changing governments hasn’t affected the f1 in Melbourne as it would be suicide for any future government to get rid off something extremely popular!

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Is there a risk if tassie based supporters and membership is high and the ground capacity is pretty much full each week, there will be little room for tourism supporters to sit and watch?

Would be a good problem to have it works great for west coast having sellout most weeks !

 

[The_Wookie]

Incidentally the best part of this report is that in includes the full version of the 2009 GEMBA report.

If there not making a loss on those games in Melbourne why are hawthorn and north bothering to come to Tasmania ? I’m sure there not doing it just for fun

need more money than they make from just matces, North are well behind in sponsorship and membership funds for example. Hawthorn are pretty much doing it to top up the bank these days,

 

[The_Wookie]

Would be a good problem to have it works great for west coast having sellout most weeks !

Its less of a good problem if your governmet funding is based on bringing tourism to the state.

 

[The_Wookie]

Changing governments hasn’t affected the f1 in Melbourne as it would be suicide for any future government to get rid off something extremely popular!

F1 is contracted for a start.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Only having a quick read through the 200 odd pages. It is quite in-depth.

I would love to know where they got a median weekly rent figure(the cheapest in the country) of $260 for Hobart. Would love to live there. Last time I checked, it was more in the $450 range. just a small thing. I am sure there are loads nitpicks if you really look.

 

[telsor]

Its no different to the current sponsorship paid to Melbourne based AFL clubs.

The loss for the AFL is funding loss making games in Melbourne.

It is different though.

Current situation: Pay $8M, and as a result of that, get 8 games and all the tourism and advertising that goes with it.


Situation with Tas club: Get 11 games, and all the tourism and advertising that comes with it for free as part of having an AFL licence....but still Pay $8M (+++) anyway. Why???



It disconnects the cause-effect relationship of the money and the games.

 

[telsor]

Changing governments hasn’t affected the f1 in Melbourne as it would be suicide for any future government to get rid off something extremely popular!

Except they work in different ways.

Vic government has a contract with F1....We pay you, you give us the F1, and it's pretty clear that if the money stops, the F1 stops.

Would the Tas government be willing to provide a similar contract with the AFL? Government stop providing funds, team closes down...

It's also not how the AFL works (as we've seen, they're very reluctant to take the hit from killing clubs off...At least, since the PR disaster of Fitzroy), which puts the burden/risk pretty much entirely on the AFL's head. There is little to stop the Tas government withdrawing funding at some point in the future (5 years, 10...30), because they'll know the AFL will, almost certainly, pick up the slack.

The AFL will know this, and it wont be considered as a positive when assessing the bid.

 

[telsor]

If there not making a loss on those games in Melbourne why are hawthorn and north bothering to come to Tasmania ? I’m sure there not doing it just for fun

Because they can make more of a profit there...


Did that really need to be pointed out to you?

 

[telsor]

"The AFL would need to provide access to the same model of AFL annual distributions that other member Clubs currently receive. Elsewhere, we have considered the equity of this and believe a Tasmanian licence would add broadcast or content value to the AFL and should therefore justify its participation in these distributions. Smaller Clubs in 2018 typically received in excess of $22M – while that could be a reasonable request of the AFL in pursuit and support of a Tasmanian licence, we have modelled just $17M. "

Asking for 17m + 8 million in government support each year. Im not sure thats a winning argument.

Report fail to note that the size of a Tasmanian tv audience is tiny - top AFL games rate around 45k. And under the AFLs current broadcast model would generally only be seen in Tasmania for the most part. Tasmania is entirely a regional tv market and the smallest in the country. Im not sure that its worth to league rights is what people think it is.

A Tas team could potentially have a negative effect of TV viewership.

With 19 teams, all teams would get a bye (or more correctly, a second bye), so fevery week apart from the 2 Tas has the bye, there is an existing team not getting a game, thus not getting broadcast and as a result a sizable subset of their fans wont be watching that week.

Unless a Tas team adds more than the average number that don't watch because their team isn't playing, then the effect of adding a Tas team would actually be negative.


For example..

Let's say in a fixture ha includes Tas, Essendon gets a bye and we have Tas Vs Freo instead of Essendon Vs Freo. Which would rate higher?

Sure, Tas might beat a few teams for ratings, but on average, probably not.

 

[Hawkk]

If there not making a loss on those games in Melbourne why are hawthorn and north bothering to come to Tasmania ? I’m sure there not doing it just for fun

Can’t speak for North but Hawthorn have a $130m (with $100m still to find) training base to fund

 

[Kappa]

A Tas team could potentially have a negative effect of TV viewership.

With 19 teams, all teams would get a bye (or more correctly, a second bye), so fevery week apart from the 2 Tas has the bye, there is an existing team not getting a game, thus not getting broadcast and as a result a sizable subset of their fans wont be watching that week.

Unless a Tas team adds more than the average number that don't watch because their team isn't playing, then the effect of adding a Tas team would actually be negative.


For example..

Let's say in a fixture ha includes Tas, Essendon gets a bye and we have Tas Vs Freo instead of Essendon Vs Freo. Which would rate higher?

Sure, Tas might beat a few teams for ratings, but on average, probably not.

If a tas team joined the afl there would be more afl games per year, and the three bye rounds would be removed.

It would add value, but probably not much.

However with more byes you could play more Thursday night games (which is great for ratings) so there's potentially a lot of value just from that flexibility. You play a team on Thursday night after the bye and there's no more complaining about short breaks.

Broadcasters would love more Thursdays and the players would accept it when they get their 2nd bye they are crying out for.

 

[Gigantor]

The thing that has almost won me over is the potential to schedule a Thursday night game almost all season round. Broadcasters will love it.
You'd have to get rid of the pre-finals bye weekend, because there is always at least one club needing a bye in the final round.
Who will that club be? Maybe you make it the previous year's wooden spooner, on the assumption that they are the least likely to jump immediately into finals the following season.
Would the AFL want to expand to a top 9 or 10?

 

[madmug]

It is different though.

Current situation: Pay $8M, and as a result of that, get 8 games and all the tourism and advertising that goes with it.


Situation with Tas club: Get 11 games, and all the tourism and advertising that comes with it for free as part of having an AFL licence....but still Pay $8M (+++) anyway. Why???



It disconnects the cause-effect relationship of the money and the games.

TF says $8mil for 360 FT jobs & $110mil economic boost. And your confused????

TF notes the link of having a club, ala Geelong & Townsville for social benefits & health of GR AF, & your confused???

 

[madmug]

A Tas team could potentially have a negative effect of TV viewership.

With 19 teams, all teams would get a bye (or more correctly, a second bye), so fevery week apart from the 2 Tas has the bye, there is an existing team not getting a game, thus not getting broadcast and as a result a sizable subset of their fans wont be watching that week.

Unless a Tas team adds more than the average number that don't watch because their team isn't playing, then the effect of adding a Tas team would actually be negative.


For example..

Let's say in a fixture ha includes Tas, Essendon gets a bye and we have Tas Vs Freo instead of Essendon Vs Freo. Which would rate higher?

Sure, Tas might beat a few teams for ratings, but on average, probably not.

So they'd only look at potential ratings reductions if Tas play instead of Essendon on 1 weekend, but ignore the fact Essendon will still play 22 games in the season?

We'd also see more games a season, maybe more Thursday nights & more Mondays perhaps.

I mean really??? Who are you kidding ???

 

[BringBackTorps]

AFR M.Mason 8.2.20

The AFL is seeking a 2 year only extension, to 2024, to the current broadcast rights deal (which expires in 2022). Apparently, negotiations are proceeding smoothly with all 3 broadcast partners.
It is very rare for the AFL to seek a very short deal- why?

AFL works on extension with Seven, Foxtel, Telstra

While some sources said a new deal was close, others tempered expectations of an imminent deal but acknowledged "there's smoke".

www.afr.com

This is a strong indication the AFL believes that Tas. will join in 2025, as the 19th team- &, of course, with 11 extra H & A games in a 19 team comp., the additional content necessitates a new & higher $ Rights' deal that starts from 2025.

The Taskforce has not answered the real question. ? What's in it for the other 18 AFL Clubs

The huge benefit is the eventual restoration of the fabled VFL/AFL pantheon of Tas. champions, stars & good players into the AFL. AFL neglect has caused a disaster for AF in Tas., draft nos. have collapsed- in quality & quantity. This revival is what the AFL very keenly desires.

The Task Force report, based on independent expert advice, says a new broadcast deal, in a 19 team comp. (11 extra H & A games pa) will be worth an a additional $19m pa for the AFL.

AFL clubs have a moral responsibility not to hurt GR AF, & to promote AF.
(Their carpetbagging of elite players in Tas. has created the Tas. Disaster. Fans only want to follow an elite comp., team, & players- but Tas. doesn't have its own elite team: no tribalism.
In the last decade, Gemba's current research has revealed the % of Tas. people who say they don't follow the AFL has risen from 22%- 48% now. SHAME AFL!)

Is there a risk if tassie based supporters and membership is high and the ground capacity is pretty much full each week, there will be little room for tourism supporters to sit and watch?

This will be a major challenge- economically & politically- for the Tas. govt. if a high no. of tourists are locked out of attending. The financial case for Tas. govt. funding is primarily predicated on the large, additional AFL tourism nos. from the mainland, & their spending whilst having a holiday in beautiful Tas.
Must build/upgrade the 2 stadia to 30,000 capacity asap.

F1 is contracted for a start.

The Vic. govt. funding currently has a net loss of c. $60m pa in its contract to stage the F1 Grand Prix 9& probably big net losses for 20+ years).

The AFL (to prevent a future Tas. govt. reducing its financial support) can include a contractual obligation on the Tas. govt ie Tas. govt. funding, CPI indexed, must remain at minimum prescribed levels- otherwise, the AFL will withdraw the licence for the Tas. team.


: 64294983, member: 102372"] The Wookie (re the Task Force Report stating the broadcast rights would be worth an extra $19m pa if Tas. becomes the 19th team, due to 11 more H & A games)
. Im not sure that its worth to league rights is what people think it is.
[/QUOTE]

The creation of GC & GWS created 9 games pw, or 22 extra H & A games pa.
What do you think these 22 extra games pa are worth, directly, for the AFL? And the worth of the indirect benefits alone?

What do you think the financial benefits to the AFL would be (when Tas. is added c. 2025 if 11 extra H & A games pa were added to the Rights' deal in a 19 team comp.?
(Assume all the ratings/advertising metrics etc. are the same as the current deal)?

With this increase of 11 H & A games pa, what do you think adding 11 extra pa Thur. night Prime Time marquee "games of the week" (few involving Tas.) would add to the Rights' deal for the AFL? (Assume there is a corresponding 1 less DS weekend daytime game pw being played)

If the AFL went to a Final 9 or Final 10, what would the extra Final/s add to the Rights? And extra ticket sales etc.?

Care to speculate on the extra value to the AFL (better ratings & better H & A ticket sales etc.) if there is increased interest in the H & A season?
(As more fans, in more teams, & for much longer in the season, have the eternal hope their team might make the Final 9 or Final 10)

Why is the AFL currently engaged in, & strongly promoting, a 2 year only extension to the Rights' deal?

 

[madmug]

AFR M.Mason 8.2.20

The AFL is seeking a 2 year only extension, to 2024, to the current broadcast rights deal (which expires in 2022). Apparently, negotiations are proceeding smoothly with all 3 broadcast partners.
It is very rare for the AFL to seek a very short deal- why?

AFL works on extension with Seven, Foxtel, Telstra

While some sources said a new deal was close, others tempered expectations of an imminent deal but acknowledged "there's smoke".

www.afr.com

This will be a major challenge- economically & politically- for the Tas. govt. if a high no. of tourists are locked out of attending. The financial case for the Tas. govt. is primarily predicated on the large, additional AFL tourism nos. from the mainland, & their spending whilst in Tas.

Any 'locking out' of tourists will be the least of any problems. If it is a roaring success that limits tourists it will be a good problem to have in the short to medium turn. It'll be a political win which ever way.

Getting a team is the initial political win, local membership is second, having to expand the ground capacities would be a great 'problem' to have.

Given that they will play the bigger games in Launceston will create a bigger headache. It has no where near the accommodation capacity that Hobart does.

I said earlier the politics will dictate ground expansion. That has come to pass already. Its no problem to me as it was the only way to get the Launy Mafia on side

 

[BringBackTorps]

1. The Age R. Ward 8.2

Ward wrote:-

. Re the naysayers "...the Report debunks all the myths about the state having its own side..."

."The Tasmanians are expected to meet with AFL Chief Executive G. Mclachlan as early as next week to begin their pitch for a team".

. "The Report states the Tasmanian team would need some government funding for as muchas the first decade before breaking even".

."Godfrey also said the Club would not seek subsidies from the AFL, only their fair share of broadcast revenue...".

Report 'debunks every myth' on AFL team for Tasmania, now 'kick us the ball'

Tasmanian officials believe a government-commissioned report "debunks all the myths" about the state having its own AFL side.

www.theage.com.au

2. The Australian/Hobart Mercury B. Stubbs 8.2 * (article link in point 4 below)

Stubbs wrote

"The AFL team Task Force chairman Brett Godfrey said the business case for the state joining the big league is so strong and hole proof, we challenge critics to pick it apart".


I have noticed that News Corp., the biggest media organisation in Australia, is very supportive of Tasmania becoming, soon, the 19th club. H./Sun has already editorialised in favour of a Tas. AFL team

This is manifested in its national & metro newspapers, regional newspapers (where it is very dominant), & Foxtel & Sky cable TV.
News Corp owns the only major daily newspapers in Brisbane, Adelaide, & Hobart; & has, generally, a strong relationship with K. Stoke's Ch.7 national network- the AFL FTA broadcaster, & strong promoter of the AFL.

The AFL has traditionally had a very strong relationship with Stokes' Seven West Media ; & less so with Nine Media (which in 2018 bought out Faifax, owner of the the struggling, smaller circulation The Age & SMH), the long term FTA broadcaster of the NRL.


3. J. Riewoldt said

"I don't think the retention of players will be an issue whatsoever. Plenty of kids come from regional areas of the country and there are some amazing things to do down in Tasmania".

In the very unlikely event the AFL declines to grant Tas. a licence, would it be perceived that the AFL considers professional players would not want to live in a small city, or regional areas?
And how would such an AFL slur impact on people, who live in these "inferior" smaller areas? And on their views of the AFL HQ; & on their general interest in GR AF, &/or following the AFL comp.?

Tasmanian AFL team 'stacks up': report - Yarrawonga Chronicle

An independent report says a Tasmanian AFL team has a strong business case and would not be a financial drag on other clubs.

www.yarrawongachronicle.com.au

EDIT:

4. Multiple MSM expressions of support for a 19th team to soon be created in Tas.

eg J.Wilson, 7Network Sports Editor; G. Cornes & W. Tredrea, both Adelaide sport journalists; A. Nicholson ABC journalist; B. Costelloe Tas. sport journalist (in his Hobart FM Radio podcast, discussing the Report) etc.

Rob Shaw has tweeted ("Be our guest...Tear it apart") to M. Robinson H/Sun, A. Maher SEN Melb. Radio, J.Pierik The Age, T. Gossage, M. Rucci & B. Stubbs, sport journalists- inviting them to take up the invitation/challenge of Task Force Chairman B. Godfrey: see if you can tear up the Report's solid arguments that a 19th team in Tas. is sustainable, & beneficial for the AFL.

A SportsDay SA Poll (unscientific) has had 89.6% vote in favour of a 19th Tas. team, 10.4% against

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

(then go to tweets 8.2 & 9.2)


* https://twitter.com/footyindustryAU?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
(then go to sportsindustry tweet dated 7.2.20 B. Stubbs, click on The Mercury "Godfrey AFL Business Case Challenge")

 

[Kwality]

Asking for 17m + 8 million in government support each year. Im not sure thats a winning argument.

'Asking for': is that your take?
In a proposal such as this it is prudent to note where you have taken figures from, calling it an ask is to deny the reality of what goes on at HQ every year & its not a gift/subsidy in the AFLs book.

Suggesting the current Tas Govt expenditure on footy would $8mil would be redirected is pretty obvious, yes you can call it govt support.

 

[Kwality]

Well you know the saying sometimes you need to spend money to make money if spending 10 million is going to get you a return of 100 million into the state each year then that’s great business

Not sure its that sort of multiple. See attached WA Tourism & sports tourism, not footy but I found the numbers informative.

The return of Rally Australia to Perth has been met with a flat no, and it is difficult to work out why

Rally Australia is looking for a new home, and there are so many reasons the classic motorsport event should be welcomed back to Western Australia with open arms, writes Clint Thomas.

www.abc.net.au