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

---

 

[madmug]

100%
With more tv keeps the dollars turning over and with less costs associated with running a club it makes it ore agreeable.

Personally would hope team 20 is the Capital(19 is obv Tassie).
Means the Giants can concentrate on Western Sydney. Besides our national game should also have a team in the Capital.

Tas1 & WA3

 

[Colonial]

Tas1 & WA3

 

[madmug]

View attachment 918248

Should've had Canberra many years ago, & Tas1 & WA3.

Maybe CV19 might thin out an old VFL club??

 

[telsor]

See it more as a cost cutting measure on top of opening the game up for more goals.

Theoretically that also opens up enough players for a 20 team league as well.

While in theory it does cut costs, in reality, it wouldn't.

Clubs spend as much as they can. Revenue is the driver...A club that earns $95M will consider than running a club successfully costs $95M.

It might cut the theoretical minimum by a bit (<500K), but when the big clubs start spending that money on the latest sports science fad, the AFL will still need to top the smaller clubs up to similar levels (relative to the big clubs) in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness.

Sure, that fad mightn't seem to matter, but at the end of the year when players start looking at moving to different clubs, the one that has the fadorama-3000 (with optional steam widget attachment) will be more attractive to the top talent than one that can't even afford the brochure.

 

[telsor]

Should've had Canberra many years ago, & Tas1 & WA3.

Maybe CV19 might thin out an old VFL club??

Yes, the AFL wont be able to support a traditional club, but will have the money for 3 clubs that will cost even more....

 

[Carringbush2010]

While in theory it does cut costs, in reality, it wouldn't.

Clubs spend as much as they can. Revenue is the driver...A club that earns $95M will consider than running a club successfully costs $95M.

It might cut the theoretical minimum by a bit (<500K), but when the big clubs start spending that money on the latest sports science fad, the AFL will still need to top the smaller clubs up to similar levels (relative to the big clubs) in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness.

Sure, that fad mightn't seem to matter, but at the end of the year when players start looking at moving to different clubs, the one that has the fadorama-3000 (with optional steam widget attachment) will be more attractive to the top talent than one that can't even afford the brochure.

Getting off topic slightly but your post has me thinking about the soft cap reduction, 'in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness' if you will. While the Toorak clubs may have the money for the latest sports science edge, in the post covid world club spending (which I admit will be a grey area) will be regulated for the equity reason.

How that effects a new Tas team coming in is up for debate, on face value it gives them a sporting chance of being competitive, getting a team up and going is the real challenge.

 

[telsor]

Getting off topic slightly but your post has me thinking about the soft cap reduction, 'in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness' if you will. While the Toorak clubs may have the money for the latest sports science edge, in the post covid world club spending (which I admit will be a grey area) will be regulated for the equity reason.

How that effects a new Tas team coming in is up for debate, on face value it gives them a sporting chance of being competitive, getting a team up and going is the real challenge.

There is only so much you can limit though.

If the revenue is there, they will find a way to spend it.

If they try and regulate it too hard, the league would probably start running into legal issues both by restricting competitiveness (restraint of trade) and player welfare (club wants to spend $20M on a in house medical room and specialised staff that will help players recover from soft tissue injuries...are the AFL going to prevent speeding up player recovery?).

 

[madmug]

Getting off topic slightly but your post has me thinking about the soft cap reduction, 'in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness' if you will. While the Toorak clubs may have the money for the latest sports science edge, in the post covid world club spending (which I admit will be a grey area) will be regulated for the equity reason.

How that effects a new Tas team coming in is up for debate, on face value it gives them a sporting chance of being competitive, getting a team up and going is the real challenge.

Well yes, its all about the politics.

I think the AFL desire to play 'hub' footy in Tassie is a bit strange. How on earth do they expect the State Government to cough up (pardon the Covid19 pun) the doe

There is only so much you can limit though.

If the revenue is there, they will find a way to spend it.

If they try and regulate it too hard, the league would probably start running into legal issues both by restricting competitiveness (restraint of trade) and player welfare (club wants to spend $20M on a in house medical room and specialised staff that will help players recover from soft tissue injuries...are the AFL going to prevent speeding up player recovery?).

Restraint of trade?? If that were ever an issue it is the salary cap & draft restraints which would be the most obvious target.

Not wizz bang machines with marginal outcomes & spiffy medical rooms which no player wants to visit.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There is only so much you can limit though.

If the revenue is there, they will find a way to spend it.

If they try and regulate it too hard, the league would probably start running into legal issues both by restricting competitiveness (restraint of trade) and player welfare (club wants to spend $20M on a in house medical room and specialised staff that will help players recover from soft tissue injuries...are the AFL going to prevent speeding up player recovery?).

Well that's all speculation really, if they regulate it 'too hard' and how it would look re legal issues on trade suppression and 'medical facilities' is really something one can only speculate on.

No doubt the intent of HQ reducing the soft cap is an equity measure first and foremost and a necessity amid cv19 secondly. How that cap cut actually works as intended is yes a grey area.

And you're right clubs are disingenuous in getting around such things, how well they do that, or how hindered they are in achieving it, especially the Toorak clubs will be interesting to see - watch this space.

IF a Tas team is to become a reality, then my theory is it will be gc format - as in it will HQ's club from a financial pov. This will test the 'genuine' of HQ in my mind.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well yes, its all about the politics.

I think the AFL desire to play 'hub' footy in Tassie is a bit strange. How on earth do they expect the State Government to cough up (pardon the Covid19 pun) the doe



Restraint of trade?? If that were ever an issue it is the salary cap & draft restraints which would be the most obvious target.

Not wizz bang machines with marginal outcomes & spiffy medical rooms which no player wants to visit.

The Tas hub is an interesting one, my guess is HQ are banking on the Tas market to pony up the cash via tv ratings and (if allowed) gate receipts. This won't cover though.

On face value it doesn't look like a 'profitable' decision though does it.

 

[madmug]

The Tas hub is an interesting one, my guess is HQ are banking on the Tas market to pony up the cash via tv ratings and (if allowed) gate receipts. This won't cover though.

On face value it doesn't look like a 'profitable' decision though does it.

Well its not 'profitable' anywhere but on TV. Its just that we don't have a team, so whats the point? They crowds would be limited & no interstate supporters, so again, where's the value to Tasmania?.

Their is a notable ground swell against allowing them to come. Not just the usual anti everything & football brigade, but people who usually support it are making noises against the games.

The State Government will look at the obvious health aspect, but the public & thus the politics is strongly against it. It'll be interesting to see if the Premier relinquishes the border rules.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well its not 'profitable' anywhere but on TV. Its just that we don't have a team, so whats the point? They crowds would be limited & no interstate supporters, so again, where's the value to Tasmania?.

Their is a notable ground swell against allowing them to come. Not just the usual anti everything & football brigade, but people who usually support it are making noises against the games.

The State Government will look at the obvious health aspect, but the public & thus the politics is strongly against it. It'll be interesting to see if the Premier relinquishes the border rules.

IF Gutwein has any cohunas I'd reckon he'll pull the plug and shut down the idea. No real benefit for Tas in this situation.

 

[telsor]

Well yes, its all about the politics.

I think the AFL desire to play 'hub' footy in Tassie is a bit strange. How on earth do they expect the State Government to cough up (pardon the Covid19 pun) the doe

I'd say the part about getting the Tas government to cough up would be simple contractual one....Contract says 4 games, we've given you 4 games, now cough up.

Maybe for goodwill it'll be 'we know it's not all as you'd like, so just pay us 75% and lets call that a deal'.

Restraint of trade?? If that were ever an issue it is the salary cap & draft restraints which would be the most obvious target.

Not wizz bang machines with marginal outcomes & spiffy medical rooms which no player wants to visit.

Restraint of trade is a big scary thing hanging over the AFL. They get around it now because the AFLPA plays ball, and they do that because the AFL gives them a lot of what they want (e.g. the ridiculously high minimum cap payment) and because everyone is well aware that if it went open slather, things would fall apart pretty quickly for everyone.

It's a mutual agreement to abide by these restraints on trade for the common good.

That only goes so far though, and restricting spending by the clubs is another ball game. Minor restrictions, such as now...sure...I mean, the rich clubs are still spending most of what they would have anyway in the soft cap area, and get to spend the rest on things that benefit them in other ways (facilities, etc), so it's not a major concern to them, so they play along because it's just not worth rocking the boat over.

But if you have a club earning $95M and start telling them they can only spend $60M on anything football related (ie, enough to have a noticable impact on how they operate and their success), and they'll tell the league where to go....and the league wont have a leg to stand on.

 

[Kwality]

We don't even have an AFL team so why bother with a hub here?

The AFL must get through the games, Tassie has been used before so its a 'go to' place with Melbourne closed. They've taken your champions, still take your money, Mugsta why are your even questioning a hub.
Without tourism whats in it for Tassie you might ask!

 

[madmug]

The AFL must get through the games, Tassie has been used before so its a 'go to' place with Melbourne closed. They've taken your champions, still take your money, Mugsta why are your even questioning a hub.
Without tourism whats in it for Tassie you might ask!

I did ask!

The raison d'etre for Hawthorn, then NM for being here was for tourism.

So without that, whats the point???

 

[Professor Knowall]

Hmmm ... Given the media reports over the last hour, it appears Madmug has much influence over the Tassie Gov't.

 

[madmug]

Hmmm ... Given the media reports over the last hour, it appears Madmug has much influence over the Tassie Gov't.

Hardly.

I think what I said had some plain logic too it. Even though I acknowledge the politics of this & other footy issues I 'often' discuss are not easy to figure out. This seemed straight forward to me.

Look, they may yet play a game or two here. But as for just announcing it when the Government hadn't cleared it first, was just pure arrogance & political stupidity. Any agreement by the Government would have made the Premier look piss weak in the eyes of just about everyone.

It seems Gil has played this very badly. I'd expect a whole lot better from a CEO on $2mil p.a.

 

[The_Reaper]

Getting off topic slightly but your post has me thinking about the soft cap reduction, 'in order to maintain a semblance of competitiveness' if you will. While the Toorak clubs may have the money for the latest sports science edge, in the post covid world club spending (which I admit will be a grey area) will be regulated for the equity reason.

How that effects a new Tas team coming in is up for debate, on face value it gives them a sporting chance of being competitive, getting a team up and going is the real challenge.

There is only a point to which they can cap spending for equalisation.

 

[The_Reaper]

IF Gutwein has any cohunas I'd reckon he'll pull the plug and shut down the idea. No real benefit for Tas in this situation.

Perhaps not a bad deal for the AFL. Means the AFL isn't liable for breaking the contract to play 4 games in Hobart.

 

[madmug]

Perhaps not a bad deal for the AFL. Means the AFL isn't liable for breaking the contract to play 4 games in Hobart.

Given the pandemic & the medical advice to Government, I'd like to see them try to sue for the money.

The media would have a field day with Gil over that sort of desperate effort & pointless insult. The public, across the country, would very much resent that sort of money grubbing.

They may yet get a game here anyway, maybe September.?

 

[The_Reaper]

Given the pandemic & the medical advice to Government, I'd like to see them try to sue for the money.

The media would have a field day with Gil over that sort of desperate effort & pointless insult. The public, across the country, would very much resent that sort of money grubbing.

They may yet get a game here anyway, maybe September.?

Its the opposite.

Now the AFL can argue that they reasonably tried to fulfil the contract but it was the Tasmanian government that prevented them from doing so.
Protecting themselves in case the breach of contract was used by Tasmania as an excuse to pull out of the contract early.

 

[madmug]

Its the opposite.

Now the AFL can argue that they reasonably tried to fulfil the contract but it was the Tasmanian government that prevented them from doing so.
Protecting themselves in case the breach of contract was used by Tasmania as an excuse to pull out of the contract early.

Well I beg to differ.

Again I'd like to see the media & public backlash if they try to sue.

Also, I think they'll get a game later on. Something will be negotiated.

 

[BobbyMorri]

yeah, trying to sue the state government would go down like a lead balloon. And in the end, it would hurt AFL more than it would help. That money has to come from somewhere for legal fees/payment, why not take it out of the community Aussie Rules. tit for tat.

AFL is just one small part in the politics down here. If we get a 2nd wave, then the state government is sunk. Hence the caution.

 

[Walshawk]

tas will take teams that have not been in Vic/NSW/QLd for 14 days. Hawthorn will head there straight from Perth for round 13. Just need to find an opponent.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There is only a point to which they can cap spending for equalisation.

Hence the grey area.