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

---

 

[Roylion]

They wanted to send North to the Gold Coast but squibbed it

The AFL had no power to send North Melbourne to the Gold Coast in 2007. They can remove a licence with a vote of the commission and 75%+ affirmative vote of the clubs but that's about it.

A Club Licence is of course an agreement between the Club and the AFL whereby the Club is granted the right to field a Team in the AFL Competition

they knew then, they know now

They sure do. No power.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL had no power to send North Melbourne to the Gold Coast in 2007. They can remove a licence with a vote of the commission and 75%+ affirmative vote of the clubs but that's about it.



They sure do. No power.

As we've disagreed over previously, the AFL can use its control of the money, no club director would risk the personal damage trading insolvent would bring.

In the current climate that prospect has been mentioned & the AFL must go though a root & branch review.

 

[Roylion]

As we've disagreed over previously, the AFL can use its control of the money, no director would risk the personal damage trading insolvent would bring.

North wasn't trading insolvent in 2007 and has certain rights to AFL finances, such as a dividend, under their licence agreement with the AFL. The AFL open themselves up to legal challenge if they penalised a certain club to 'encourage' them to re-locate. The very fact that the AFL proposed to take total control of the North Melbourne Football Club in the event of a relocation, tried to purchase 75% of their shares and offered a lucrative $100 million relocation package indicates that they couldn't force North Melbourne to do anything unless they had legal control of the club (which they didn't).

 

[BringBackTorps]

The simple fact is that there isn't a city in Tasmania that would provide a big enough population to keep an AFL club going.[Incorrect]

Have a look earlier in this thread, & from 6.2.20 (where you can see the very impressive, independently assessed Tas. Business Case details. NO AFL or MSM expert has challenged the Business Case, let alone been able to rebut it).
Tas. home games would be played in Hobart & Launceston. Both stadia will be enlarged (with both Federal & Tas. govt considerable $- much to AFL's delight; & will regularly be packed out).

Adding Tas. as the 19th team will deliver an extra $19m pa in broadcast rights' $ to the AFL (assuming the terms for the next deal are, in all material terms, the same as the last deal). This is because 19 teams in the AFL adds 11 extra H & A games pa, 198-209 pa (& probably 11 extra, VERY valuable Primetime Thursday night slots).
For details of how these extra 11 games pa are worth c.$19m extra pa for the AFL, see my post#726 below.

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

GO TO PART 2 of this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/congratulations-on-tassie-license-mens-team-to-enter-2028-womens-team-tba-other-details-tba-3-5-part-2.1357724/

www.bigfooty.com

(also read my posts #726,874,937,1250,1351,1372).

It's also not a new TV market that will bring extra money to the TV rights negotiations.[Incorrect] A game a week in NSW and Qld sells (though no one watches), a game a fortnight in Tassie isn't appealing to FTA/Fox

Ditto above, to Waffle

The AFL sells media rights based on volume - they will not be killing off teams if they can help it.[Correct. And AFL wants to maximise DS games]

Which greatly assists the Tas. 19th team bid extra Broadcast $, as it will enable the AFL to be paid an extra c. $19m pa




2. Might as well add both these new items here.

SEN Melb. Radio D. Russel program 3.4

News- sport segment.

G. McLachlan said

"I want to dispense with the speculation that the AFL is being forced (my emphasis) by the broadcasters into new negotiations".

I inferred from McLachlan's comments that the AFL is not in the same terrible predicament as the NRL- where Ch. 9 has told the NRL it wants to tear up its rights' deal (& probably pay less for 2021-2022 also).
See my related, recent posts in BF Thread- Footy Industry Forum "Non-AFL Crowds, Ratings etc.), posts#491,516, with links.

The AFL will be paid much less in 2020, of course, because far less AFL games will be paid.


If A. Maher is to be believed, the AFL is planning for a tentative return in June (almost certainly before empty stadia).
The sooner season 2020 recommences, & 17 H & A games are played (& Rights' $ start flowing to the AFL), the better it is for the Tas. 19th team bid

The possible AFL return date being discussed

This is what Andy Maher is hearing.

www.sen.com.au

but this suggests an August AFL return

Knuckle down and prepare: Clubs given steer on AFL return date

Knuckle down and prepare: Clubs given steer on AFL return date

www.foxsports.com.au

G. McLachlan also said today "only a very small amount" of club members have asked for a refund.
Precious $ in the Clubs' accounts.

 

[Kwality]

North wasn't trading insolvent in 2007 and has certain rights to AFL finances, such as a dividend, under their licence agreement with the AFL. The AFL open themselves up to legal challenge if they penalised a certain club to 'encourage' them to re-locate. The very fact that the AFL proposed to take total control of the North Melbourne Football Club in the event of a relocation, tried to purchase 75% of their shares and offered a lucrative $100 million relocation package indicates that they couldt force North Melbourne to do anything unless they had legal control of the club (which they didn't).

Nothing you have said would stop the AFL using the money if they chose.

 

[NeXus Nick]

Move Gold Coast there and kill two birds with one stone

Move North Melbourne there..................................PERFECT.

 

[Rob]

North wasn't trading insolvent in 2007 and has certain rights to AFL finances, such as a dividend, under their licence agreement with the AFL. The AFL open themselves up to legal challenge if they penalised a certain club to 'encourage' them to re-locate. The very fact that the AFL proposed to take total control of the North Melbourne Football Club in the event of a relocation, tried to purchase 75% of their shares and offered a lucrative $100 million relocation package indicates that they couldn't force North Melbourne to do anything unless they had legal control of the club (which they didn't).

The AFL would have been well within their legal rights to withdraw some or all of the discretionary component of the annual distribution. Almost unquestionably this would have sent North to the wall within a couple of years.
The league actually went the other way and increased distributions.

 

[Roylion]

The AFL would have been well within their legal rights to withdraw some or all of the discretionary component of the annual distribution. Almost unquestionably this would have sent North to the wall within a couple of years.

Then North might have had a legal case for being treated unfairly given that some clubs in similar financial situations were given larger or similar distribution payments. For example:

2009 - Annual Special Distribution payments

• Western Bulldogs $1.7m
• North $1.4m
• Melbourne $1m
• Sydney $0.8m
• Carlton $0.6m
• Richmond $0.4m
• Port $0.3m
• Hawthorn $0.3m

2010 - Annual Special Distribution payments

• Western Bulldogs $1.7m
• North $1.4m
• Port $1.3m
• Melbourne $1m
• Sydney $0.8m
• Carlton $0.6m
• Richmond $0.4m

North Melbourne made a operating profit of $1,088,941 in 2008 and a net profit of $6,033,136. The Club also received government grants in relation to the Arden Street redevelopment of $5,150,000. The Club was to receive $12.5 million between 2008-2010 from the Federal and State governments.

 

[Rob]

Then North might have had a legal case for being treated unfairly given that some clubs in similar financial situations were given larger or similar distribution payments.

I doubt it. You need a lot more to win a court case for unconscionable conduct (which is what I presume you're talking about when you suggest a legal case) than to simply whine about unfairness.

There is nothing that compels the AFL to give any club additional money.

Even if there was, they can point to their extremely generous offer to relocate, which was declined.

North Melbourne made a operating profit of $1,088,941 in 2008 and a net profit of $6,033,136. The Club also received government grants in relation to the Arden Street redevelopment of $5,150,000. The Club was to receive $12.5 million between 2008-2010 from the Federal and State governments.

Yes, and they spent it all on buildings on land they don't own, and therefore have zero resale value. (not suggesting it was a bad decision because that's what they were given the money for in the first place, i'm just saying it's got zero relevance to their current financial position, which is poor).

 

[BringBackTorps]

Ch.9 WWOS C. Wilson 16.3

"The AFL is on the verge of extending its current TV rights deal for 2 years...The AFL receives $418m per year and, according to Wilson, the same agreement (ie @ $418m pa) will now continue to 2024".

"It will be announced in months, possibly 1 month" said Wilson, a multi-award winning very experienced AFL journalist.

AFL set to extend TV deal amid COVID pandemic

'It's Gil's finest hour and his best ever deal'

wwos.nine.com.au

Tasmania's back!

 

[madmug]

Ch.9 WWOS C. Wilson 19.3

"The AFLis on the verge of extending its current TV rights deal for 2 years...The AFL receives $418m per year and, according to Wilson, the same agreement (ie @ $418m pa) will now continue to 2024".

"It will be announced in months, possibly 1 month" Wilson said.

AFL set to extend TV deal amid COVID pandemic

'It's Gil's finest hour and his best ever deal'

wwos.nine.com.au

Tasmania's back!

We never went away.

 

[Roylion]

I doubt it. You need a lot more to win a court case for unconscionable conduct (which is what I presume you're talking about when you suggest a legal case) than to simply whine about unfairness.

Even if there was, they can point to their extremely generous offer to relocate, which was declined.

The very fact the AFL immediately abandoned any further attempt to 'push' North Melbourne to the Gold Coast, after the board rejected the AFL offer and began plans to install a new team there, indicates that any further effort was going to be too lengthy, costly and extremely bad PR for the AFL, along the lines of 1996. Whether any such attempt by the AFL would have eventually involved legal action remained to be seen, but clubs taking legal action against the AFL is not unheard of. Not only that but there was support for North Melbourne from the State Government which had tipped in $8 million towards the $15 million Arden Street redevelopment.

i'm just saying it's got zero relevance to their current financial position, which is poor).

North currently has a total debt of $650,000 and had it not been for the coronavirus issue would have been debt free by October 2020.

 

[Verdun]

The very fact the AFL immediately abandoned any further attempt to 'push' North Melbourne to the Gold Coast, after the board rejected the AFL offer and began plans to install a new team there, indicates that any further effort was going to be too lengthy, costly and extremely bad PR for the AFL, along the lines of 1996. Whether any such attempt by the AFL would have eventually involved legal action remained to be seen, but clubs taking legal action against the AFL is not unheard of. Not only that but there was support for North Melbourne from the State Government which had tipped in $8 million towards the $15 million Arden Street redevelopment.



North currently has a total debt of $650,000 and had it not been for the coronavirus issue would have been debt free by October 2020.

that may be current and in no small part due to the huge amount of $ given by the Tasmanian taxpayer, reckon like other clubs it will be increasing dramatically . I have nothing against North I do not agree with the Tas govt continuing to pay AFL clubs and the AFL leeching money from the state

 

[Roylion]

that may be current and in no small part due to the huge amount of $ given by the Tasmanian taxpayer,

Certainly less than the $19 million given to Hawthorn over 5 years by the Tasmanian government. 8 AFL matches per year in Tasmania cost about $7.5 million.

North have 7,000 members in Tasmania. They injected $43 million into the Hobart economy in 2015 alone as the result of playing three games there.

North Melbourne partner with TT-Line Company Pty Ltd, (the operators of Spirit of Tasmania) as well as obtain contributions from other local businesses and the Hobart City Council. TT-Line, which is a government business enterprise wholly owned by the Tasmania Government paid North Melbourne $1.5 million from 2011-2014. They reportedly are the sole backer of North Melbourne's Hobart games until 2021.

 

[Verdun]

Certainly less than the $19 million given to Hawthorn over 5 years by the Tasmanian government. 8 AFL matches per year in Tasmania cost about $7.5 million.

North have 7,000 members in Tasmania. They injected $43 million into the Hobart economy in 2015 alone as the result of playing three games there.

North Melbourne partner with TT-Line Company Pty Ltd, (the operators of Spirit of Tasmania) as well as obtain contributions from other local businesses and the Hobart City Council. TT-Line, which is a government business enterprise wholly owned by the Tasmania Government paid North Melbourne $1.5 million from 2011-2014. They reportedly are the sole backer of North Melbourne's Hobart games until 2021.

Yes we should not be giving money to teams from Victoria full stop.

This argument is old and tired and deceiving. That money would be significantly more if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy.

Take those 7000 members from here and see how their budget would be (likely happen that at least half of them would join an actual Tasmanian team).

Take the $'s given to North away from Tasmanian taxpayers and local businesses and how would their debt be.

North should be subsidised by the AFL not Tasmania, how would you feel if the Victorian Government sponsored ie paid a inter state team to play in Victoria

 

[Roylion]

This argument is old and tired and deceiving. That money would be significantly more if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy.

But there is no Tasmanian team at the moment. And despite how some want to portray it, there are benefits for the Tasmanian economy in Melbourne based club playing AFL matches in Tasmania. It's not all one way. I myself have been to Launceston on a number of occasions to watch the Lions play and spent $400-500 during the weekend. My particular social group on those occasions would have spent $3,000-4,000 per weekend.

Take those 7000 members from here and see how their budget would be (likely happen that at least half of them would join an actual Tasmanian team).

Most likely. But at the moment there is no Tasmanian team. North were hoping to lift their Tasmanian membership to 10,000 this year. Obviously that looks remote.

Take the $'s given to North away from Tasmanian taxpayers and local businesses and how would their debt be.

Probably higher. North have a Tasmanian deal until 2021 and I would be guessing that deal will be extended until at least 2024.

North should be subsidised by the AFL not Tasmania, how would you feel if the Victorian Government sponsored ie paid a inter state team to play in Victoria

Couldn't care less. If its an extra game it'll bring extra money into the Victorian economy. I hope it's the Brisbane Lions. Be great if the Vic. government sponsored a Brisbane Lions vs Sydney Swans game. Think of the marketing opportunities.

 

[Verdun]

But there is no Tasmanian team at the moment. And despite how some want to portray it, there are benefits for the Tasmanian economy in Melbourne based club playing AFL matches in Tasmania. It's not all one way. I myself have been to Launceston on a number of occasions to watch the Lions play and spent $400-500 during the weekend. My particular social group on those occasions would have spent $3,000-4,000 per weekend.



Most likely. But at the moment there is no Tasmanian team. North were hoping to lift their Tasmanian membership to 10,000 this year. Obviously that looks remote.



Probably higher. North have a Tasmanian deal until 2021 and I would be guessing that deal will be extended until at least 2024.



Couldn't care less. If its an extra game it'll bring extra money into the Victorian economy. I hope it's the Brisbane Lions. Be great if the Vic. government sponsored a Brisbane Lions vs Sydney Swans game. Think of the marketing opportunities.

Yep we don't have team great in sight - either does Fitzroy.


You have just repeated what you said, that is fine and it apparent what your point of view is.

I like a lot of Tasmanians do not want my tax dollars going to another state that is what is occurring - if we had our own team the supporters from other teams would still travel here.

Mine is very different and the big difference now is that most Tasmanians believe the same.

Guessing is fine, just that -The Premier of Tasmania has said any future contract discussions / commitments need to include concrete steps to have a Tasmanian team.

You actually stating that you are ok with the Victorian Government potentially sponsoring Brisbane to play in Melbourne shows your bias - about your team not your state. Couldn't care less??

 

[Roylion]

Yep we don't have team great in sight - either does Fitzroy.

What an inane comment. What's Fitzroy got to do with anything?

Of course there would probably be more money if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy. But there's not at the moment.

You have just repeated what you said, that is fine and it apparent what your point of view is.

Oh? And what's my point of view?

I like a lot of Tasmanians do not want my tax dollars going to another state that is what is occurring - if we had our own team the supporters from other teams would still travel here.

Did I say they wouldn't? However don't try and portray that Tasmania receives no current economic benefits from taxpayers money being spent on bringing North Melbourne and Hawthorn to Tasmania. The state clearly does receive benefit from spending 'taxpayer's dollars".

You actually stating that you are ok with the Victorian Government potentially sponsoring Brisbane to play in Melbourne shows your bias - about your team not your state. Couldn't care less??

Couldn't care less. It could be any team. West Coast vs Adelaide for example. As I said, if it's an extra game and therefore brings in extra money to the Victorian economy why not. Be great if it was the Brisbane Lions as I'd get to see them more often. But any non-Victorian team would do.

 

[Kwality]

There is nothing that compels the AFL to give any club additional money.

The AFL have never justified payments in this space, certainly never made a case year by year ...

 

[Verdun]

What an inane comment. What's Fitzroy got to do with anything?

Of course there would probably be more money if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy. But there's not at the moment.



Oh? And what's my point of view?



Did I say they wouldn't? However don't try and portray that Tasmania receives no current economic benefits from taxpayers money being spent on bringing North Melbourne and Hawthorn to Tasmania. The state clearly does receive benefit from spending 'taxpayer's dollars".



Couldn't care less. It could be any team. West Coast vs Adelaide for example. As I said, if it's an extra game and therefore brings in extra money to the Victorian economy why not. Be great if it was the Brisbane Lions as I'd get to see them more often. But any non-Victorian team would do.

Inane comment - that is so hypocritical after stating Tas doesn't have a team, that is a inane comment.

What do you think Fitzroy has to do with it?

When did I say the state receives no economic benefit???? The state would also receive economic benefit from investing in preventative health and more if it invested in a Tasmanian team.

Economies of scale that are relevant to investment.

You keep saying couldn't care less, what a inane comment.

 

[madmug]

What an inane comment. What's Fitzroy got to do with anything?

Of course there would probably be more money if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy. But there's not at the moment.



Oh? And what's my point of view?



Did I say they wouldn't? However don't try and portray that Tasmania receives no current economic benefits from taxpayers money being spent on bringing North Melbourne and Hawthorn to Tasmania. The state clearly does receive benefit from spending 'taxpayer's dollars".



Couldn't care less. It could be any team. West Coast vs Adelaide for example. As I said, if it's an extra game and therefore brings in extra money to the Victorian economy why not. Be great if it was the Brisbane Lions as I'd get to see them more often. But any non-Victorian team would do.

As I've said, I think North Melbourne are gone anyway. Football in Hobart is more politically expendable here. The 15year gap in AFL matches in Hobart did our football no good at all. Soccer has flourish in junior ranks in the south.

Hawthorn are much harder to just dump, such is the politics in Launceston. But don't worry the pressure is on.

The AFL have to address the Tasteam bid. No good trying to just fob it off like Gils Tassie footy rescue package which reinstated the u18's & a return to the VFL.

His 'Return to the Future' package was just to wring more draftable players out of this place & let the rest of our footy die.

Anyway, we shall see. 2025 is clearly doable.

 

[Roylion]

Inane comment - that is so hypocritical after stating Tas doesn't have a team, that is a inane comment.

Of course it's not when you post "That money would be significantly more if it was a Tasmanian team directed in to the Tasmanian economy." Of course it would but the reason North and Hawthorn are currently down there is because playing AFL games there contributes significantly to the Tasmanian economy and there is no Tasmanian team at the moment. Surely my original comment wasn't that difficult to understand?

What do you think Fitzroy has to do with it?

No idea. You tell me. I'm a 2020 member of the Brisbane Lions and a 2020 member of the Fitzroy Football Club. So?

When did I say the state receives no economic benefit????

You went on about the cost to the Tasmanian taxpayer of North and Hawthorn playing in Tasmania, but didn't acknowledge there are Victoria dollars flowing to Tasmania as well.

So you do agree there's economic benefit to Tasmania by Melbourne based teams playing in Tasmania. Good.

You keep saying couldn't care less, what a inane comment.

You were the one that asked me "...how would you feel if the Victorian Government sponsored ie paid a inter state team to play in Victoria"

Didn't like the answer?

Once again it doesn't worry me one way or the other, [couldn't care less] but if it happens, so be it. It'll bring extra money into Victoria's economy.

 

[Roylion]

As I've said, I think North Melbourne are gone anyway. Football in Hobart is more politically expendable here. The 15year gap in AFL matches in Hobart did our football no good at all. Soccer has flourish in junior ranks in the south.

Hawthorn are much harder to just dump, such is the politics in Launceston. But don't worry the pressure is on.

The AFL have to address the Tasteam bid. No good trying to just fob it off like Gils Tassie footy rescue package which reinstated the u18's & a return to the VFL.

His 'Return to the Future' package was just to wring more draftable players out of this place & let the rest of our footy die.

Anyway, we shall see. 2025 is clearly doable.

I have no opposition to Tasmania having their own team. If it's by 2025, great!

 

[Verdun]

No idea. You tell me. I'm a 2020 member of the Brisbane Lions and a 2020 member of the Fitzroy Football Club. So?

Pleased you are a member of both, you obviously have a passion for Fitzroy - do you believe they should still be in the AFL?

You went on about the cost to the Tasmanian taxpayer of North and Hawthorn playing in Tasmania, but didn't acknowledge there are Victoria dollars flowing to Tasmania as well.

So you do agree there's economic benefit to Tasmania by Melbourne based teams playing in Tasmania. Good.

Do you understand that as a Tasmanian I believe that money could be better invested elsewhere for a better return?

You were the one that asked me "...how would you feel if the Victorian Government sponsored ie paid a inter state team to play in Victoria"

Didn't like the answer?

Once again it doesn't worry me one way or the other, [couldn't care less] but if it happens, so be it. It'll bring extra money into Victoria's economy.

Fitzroy Football Club (est. 1883)


Actually quite interested in the answer, find it quite ironical. Do not dislike it! Actually believe you do care and I respect that. Also believe that it may change if your state government continued to do so - while Melbourne clubs possibly decreased.

I have no opposition to Tasmania having their own team. If it's by 2025, great!

A first step for this to happen would be the AFL to commit to it , the Tas Government to stop funding AFL teams

 

[madmug]

A first step for this to happen would be the AFL to commit to it , the Tas Government to stop funding AFL teams

I don't think we'll see a public split between a Tasmanian Government & the AFL over this. Discussions will be private & serious.

As said I think North are Gawn, no matter what.

However, the AFL will have to address the bid properly. Fobbing it off, or kicking the can again by saying 10-15yrs, wont cut it.